Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

BILL PRESENTED

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (REAFFIRMATION OF SOVEREIGNTY OF UNITED KINGDOM PARLIAMENT)

Mr. William Cash, supported by Mr. John Biffen, Sir George Gardiner, Sir Peter Tapsell, Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Mr. Barry Legg, Mr. Roger Knapman, Mr. Neil Hamilton, Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mrs. Ann Winterton and Mr. Bill Walker presented a Bill to preserve the right of the people of the United Kingdom to govern itself within the European Community: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 March, and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

Referendum Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill provides for the holding of a referendum on the United Kingdom's membership of European Union. It proposes that a referendum be held before 31 December 1995, and that the questions be so framed as to invite opinion on whether the UK should continue along the path to a single European Government with a single currency and a single body of law, or whether we should remain in the Union only on the basis of free trade with a very substantial repatriation of our national sovereignty.
In 1996, the members of the European Union will hold an intergovernmental conference to review the terms of the European Union from the treaty of Rome through the Single European Act to the Maastricht treaty. The conference will provide an opportunity to reflect on where we go from here, and it will be a singularly opportune moment to find out what the British people think about what has happened in the 20 years since they affirmed their willingness to become part of what was then described as an economic union.
In the past 20 years, people have been asked to accept substantial changes about which they were not fully warned and which have amounted to a constitutional revolution. So far, they have not been given an opportunity through referendums or elections to express their views because, by and large, most of the parties have gone to the country at election time with similar policies—although we know that the Labour party in its not too distant history has done a U-turn on the matter.

Several hon. Members.: rose—

Mrs. Gorman: I shall not give way for a little while; hon. Members must wait their turn.
My hunch is that the time is right to ask people what they think about the European Union. One of the blessings of having the Whip withdrawn is that one is no longer tied to this place morning, noon and night. As a result, my Whipless colleagues and I have had the opportunity of going around the country and talking to ordinary people who are dealing day by day with the problems presented to them by European regulations.
For example, the fishermen at Lowestoft and Brixham are fighting to save their livelihoods with the Save British Fish campaign. Under the regulations of the common fisheries policy, they face the possibility of Spanish vessels coming into the remaining protected British waters to scoop out the basis of their livelihoods. Other fishing ports around the country have been destroyed by the policy during the past 20 years. For example, the last fishing vessel in Hull was burned recently. Imagine that—the last vessel in one of the great centres of our fishing industry burned because of the common fisheries policy.
There is no doubt in the minds of those fishermen that they want the repatriation of the fishing grounds of the British Isles, that they want the grounds back soon and that they will fight for them. It was a great pleasure and an honour for us to visit them and give them our magnificent support.
The farmers in Britain have also been pleased to express to us their concerns about what is happening in agriculture. We are sometimes given to understand that, with all its faults, the common agricultural policy is delivering the goods to British farmers and that they are all prepared to put up with it. That is not the case at all.
They pointed out to us that, under the quota system for milk, farmers who had large herds of cows could live off their milk quotas. They did not need to keep a cow. They could lease the quota to poorer farmers who desperately needed it because otherwise they would be forced to spray milk on to their fields. The supermarkets are full of ersatz processed European packets of milk and yoghurt produced anywhere but in Britain. There is a shortage of milk in Britain, while we throw the stuff down the drain.
Such examples have brought home to us the urgent need to consult the people. I promise the House that any party which adopts the referendum as a firm commitment— if not immediately, certainly in its election policy—will have enormous support in the country. We know that because we have had it, so to speak, from the horse's mouth—the people of Britain.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my hon. Friend propose that the result of the referendum should be binding on most, if not all, politicians?

Mrs. Gorman: I most certainly agree with my hon. Friend.
May I review what different people have to say about the European Community. We know that our European Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan, says that he is sure that there is no desire on the continent to create, for example, a federal united states of Europe. Yet I detect a great deal of scepticism in Britain among the people he represents about whether that is true.
Mr. Santer tells us that he wants a fully federated Europe and that he wants to see the end of our British currency before 1999. We know what the Chancellor thinks. He is a Euro-fan. He does not deny it. The other day, he said that it would be a mistake to believe that monetary union needed to be a huge step on the path to a federal Europe. Do we believe that? I am not sure that we do. In any case, do the British public believe that?
We know what Lord Howe thinks. He is another dedicated pro-European. He says that only by acting more closely with our European partners can we control our destiny. We could put up a good argument that the opposite is the truth and that control of our destiny would require us to repatriate many of the powers that we have given away to the European Community.
We also know what the Prime Minister thinks. He says that he wants us to be at the heart of Europe, but he has not spelt out just what will happen if, for example, there was heart failure. With the corruption that we hear about in the heart of Europe, it is possible that we may be bogging ourselves down in an institution that could drag us all down. Is it really necessary for us to continue in an organisation which is so obviously flawed?

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I want to put a point to the hon. Lady on the timing of her referendum,

which I find a little curious. The first leg of her question is about pursuing full integration of the European Union and so on. Surely there are two other possibilities. One is that those issues will not feature on the agenda of the IGC in 1996. The other is that, if they do, they will be vetoed by the Prime Minister in his discussions with our European partners. In that case, that part of the question would be surplus to requirements. Will she comment on whether the referendum should perhaps come after the IGC?

Mrs. Gorman: I take my hon. Friend's point, but it is important that whoever negotiates at the IGC should have in their minds a clear view of how the British people feel about Europe now, 20 years after they originally voted to stay in it.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I hope that my hon. Friend will ignore that silly question. Does she appreciate that it would strengthen the authority of any British Prime Minister, whether Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat or anything else, if he could go to the IGC next year and say that he represented what the British people believed? That would be better than listening to some silly people who make stupid points to interrupt my hon. Friend. Does she agree that, instead of making his position more difficult, a referendum would strengthen the Prime Minister's hand enormously?

Mrs. Gorman: I agree with my hon. Friend, who has a noble tradition of fighting for the independence of the British nation.

Mr. Waterson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) to cast aspersions on my reason for intervening? I asked a question about a factual matter and the hon. Lady was good enough to give way in her normal courteous fashion. It is not acceptable for the hon. Gentleman, who has been in this place long enough and should know better, to make such remarks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a point of order for the Chair. One hopes that at all times hon. Members will maintain common courtesy and not play the game of insulting one another. That game appears to be rapidly creeping into the debates in the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a point of order for you. It is pretty clear at this early stage in the debate that the anti-marketeer and pro-marketeer Tory Members of Parliament are beginning to fight one another and call one another names. I am putting in a direct request to you to place a splash apron between us and the Conservative Benches to catch the blood.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not for me to get involved in that matter.

Mrs. Gorman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Gary Streeter: My hon. Friend seemed to say in response to her hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that a referendum before the IGC would strengthen the Prime


Minister's negotiating position at the IGC, but what if the people of Britain voted to stay in Europe? Or has my hon. Friend prejudged the outcome of such a referendum?

Mrs. Gorman: That was a rather silly intervention. It is perfectly obvious, as I am a democrat and we are all democrats, that if the British people voted strongly for a pro-European position, of course the Prime Minister would negotiate strongly and rightly from that perspective.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): My hon. Friend is putting an admirable case extremely cogently. Does she agree that it is paradoxical for Her Majesty's Government to propose a referendum to legitimise the framework for what they hope will be an ultimate constitutional settlement for Northern Ireland which will bring peace, while they deny the legitimisation of a process of integration within Europe which will eventually lead to such an erosion of our sovereignty that we will be no longer an independent nation?

Mrs. Gorman: Very well said, if I may say so.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Gorman: I will not give way for the moment, but I will a little later.
Recently, 107 of my colleagues signed early-day motion 581, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), in which he praised the firm line that the Prime Minister was beginning to take on a single currency. It is extremely important for the British people to understand the meaning of that. As we have gone around the country, we have found that, just as they were about Maastricht, people are confused. They do not understand the great significance.
We remind them what happened the last time we changed our currency. On decimalisation, the value of money halved and the price of everything doubled. People know what will happen to the pound in their pocket if and when we get a single currency. Before decimalisation, a doughnut cost a tanner. It does not quite cost a tenner now, but it costs 10 bob. When we put it in those terms, we see by how much our money was devalued by a change in the currency.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Gorman: I will not give way just now.
Those are the issues that concern the British people and which we hope we will be able clearly to bring to them. We are not alone in making these remarks. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) made a marvellous speech on Friday, in which he spelled out from his great experience of negotiating in Europe for so many years that there is nothing in it for the British people any more, that it is a costly extravagance and that it costs us more than we get out of it. Furthermore, he could see no way in which that position would improve. I credit him with enormous honesty for making those remarks. It is almost a pity, however, that we have to wait for people to leave office before we get to know what is going on behind the scenes.
There have been other remarkable conversions. Do any hon. Members remember Lord Young? I am sure that many will. Not so many years ago, he cajoled and bullied

us into the single market, telling us of our great future and saying that it would be wonderful. Now that he is in the City and faces the problems of dealing with Europe, he is a reformed, born-again Euro-sceptic. He has come to the conclusion that there is nothing in it for the British people, as did the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames.
All those issues should be made clear to the British people in the run-up to a referendum, when they would be able to make their choice and have their say, as would all my colleagues who passionately believe that our future lies in Europe, and almost only in Europe—as if we would be adrift, anchorless, aimless and directionless in a rough sea without it. Many of our colleagues literally and sincerely believe that, but I think that it is gobbledegook.
We have gone over the business of having a referendum many times in the House. I am not what I would call a parliamentary expert, but we have had four referendums in the recent past and it is an established tradition. It is an important way to tap the British people's feelings outside of an election based largely on the one issue, which the referendum would bring to the people. There is an excellent reason for having a referendum and having it soon.
I want to say more about my personal experience in Europe, because it was Europe that brought me into politics. Before we joined the European Community in 1972, I was a small business woman, minding my own business and not politically involved or interested. Then value added tax was introduced, with all the problems that it caused the small business community. That was the first of the European impositions of which I became aware. I witnessed what it did, as customs men went round with crowbars, bending open people's filing cabinets to try to trap them into some petty book-keeping mistake—such mistakes happen in any organisation, including the European Community—and terrifying the life out of them.
Many other regulations were introduced which affected my ability to import and export. There were demands for standards and types of equipment and raw materials which were not necessarily appropriate to the products that I was making, but which the European Community required. I began to feel as though Europe was taking over my business. That made me interested in politics for the first time and it got me interested in looking for a party that might give me some salvation from that impost, caused me to join the Conservative party and, ultimately, brought me to this position today.
It makes me smile when I listen to colleagues telling me that, without the European Community, our country and our economy will go down the pan, that we will be unable to survive and will lose thousands of jobs. I can only tell them that there are thousands of jobs to be gained by getting out of Europe, if it means that we can get rid of this incubus of regulation, which is a nightmare for our business community.
When I listen to those on the Front Benches dictating these apparently wonderful and utopian ideas to us, I ask myself what they know about running a business. With the greatest respect in the world, most of them have come to Parliament from the law, or directly from institutions and research departments. They have not had hands-on experience of running a business worldwide. Well, I have, and I can tell the House that it has always been ten times more difficult to get anything into the French or German


markets than to get goods into the Pacific rim countries and to north and south America, which have strong traditional connections with Britain and still have an enormous respect for us.
To do business almost entirely into the European Community is to make life tougher than necessary for the business man. After all, Europe has only 10 per cent. of the world's population. The way we keep hearing about it, one would think that it was the whole world. It also has about 15 per cent. of the world's gross production.
We have enormous opportunities elsewhere and there is no reason why we should not have both, but we also know that the European Community is a cartel and a customs union. From my practical experience, I know that if people cannot trade into our markets it is 10 times more difficult for us to trade into theirs. They have to earn our currency to buy goods back from us.
I hear people going on about the importance of the single currency, which will make it easier for the business community. I promise hon. Members that that is a joke. If one is in business and doing business abroad, one buys forward currency, often dollars, because that currency is universally respected. It is silly to think that a single currency imposed on us in Europe will make life easier for the business community.
It is equally silly to suggest that a small island such as Britain, with only 52 million people, could not survive and prosper economically. Look at the Japanese—they have two small islands and practically no resources, but they do remarkably well without being trapped into one of these customs unions with which we are involving ourselves so deeply.
The fear factor has been suggested—it has been raised even at the exalted heights of the President of the Board of Trade from time to time—as a reason why we have to cling on to this European raft, but it is simply not a true representation of the facts. The British nation has always had a different attitude to the rest of the continent of Europe. We have always looked outwards in all directions and not just across to the European continent. Our great success has been that when we have had the largest amount of free trade, as we did when we finally dumped many of the trade restrictions in the mid-1800s, with the ending of the corn laws and all the rest, we moved—

Mr. Denis MaeShane: The 1900s.

Mrs. Gorman: We abandoned the corn laws in 1846. I thank the hon. Gentleman for intervening, but I wish that he would get his facts right. I am neither an economist nor a historian, but that I do know.
British markets prospered and flourished right up until the first world war, in a way that they have never done since. That showed up in the increasing health of the nation and in the growth and increasing longevity of the population, all of which were factors in the increasing wealth. People went from living in what were virtually soil-floored, straw-roofed mud huts to little houses with brick walls, proper loos and lino on the floor—buildings that were so precious to the nation that they eventually caught the eye of English Heritage and got one of those awful "Listed building, do not touch" labels hung on them. All the pointers in our history show that the British people, when encouraged to trade universally and not merely into Europe, do remarkably well.
I sometimes think that we politicians are like bomber pilots. We drop our policies from a great height and are indifferent to their effect on people on the ground. I am telling the House what it is like for many people on the receiving end of Euro-regulations and trying to convince my colleagues who are fanatically pro-European and want all that harmonisation to think again about what it is doing to our country's prosperity. The idea of a level playing field, which is fundamental to the European mentality, is the antithesis of what free markets are about. They are about comparative advantage over one's potential rivals, and that is how one makes businesses and countries prosper.
Those are all the reasons why the British people should be given a chance to decide for themselves in a referendum. They may not agree with me and may decide to vote, as some of my colleagues hope, for the full European package—so be it. But attitudes have changed remarkably in the past few months. When people see European courts overruling British courts and ordering British taxpayers to compensate convicted drug smugglers for some technical reason, they are furious and want to know why British laws are no longer paramount.
When they see British Ministers trail out to Europe, shake hands with protesters against the veal trade and say, "I hope you can do something about it," what do they think of the power left to those Ministers? British Ministers are simply puppets who can no longer lay down what the British people want because, even if they put that view across, they can be overruled. If we continue in that way, they will be overruled on everything. To give more power to the elbow of our Ministers, it is paramount that we give the British people an opportunity to sanction their best interests.
My colleagues will make many points about the current position and deal with sovereignty and the details of a single currency, at which they are all much more competent than I. I am British—indeed, I am English—and I feel that that is my identity. People's identity and association with their country is paramount to that country's stability. When that is churned up and people are told that they must become something new—Europeans—they do not know what it means.
They do not understand the qualities of that society; what its laws expect of them; what they can expect from politicians; what the value of their currency should mean to them; what they have a right to demand of their politicians; and what they must pay their state in terms of rights as well as taking opportunities. All that is tied up in our national identity, and we disturb it at our peril, especially if we do so without first giving people a say.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Lady will be interested to know that I shall vote for her Referendum Bill, given a chance to do so, in line with the practice that I have adopted in the House since 28 October 1971 when a previous Tory Government took the disastrous decision to drag the British people into the common market. But I shall not do so for nationalistic or flag-waving reasons.
There are inherent contradictions within the common market, which is why I express such views. As I have declared that I will vote for the Referendum Bill today, will the hon. Lady guarantee that, in view of all her opinions on the common market and how the Government are carrying out their activities in Europe, she will join us


in the Lobby next Wednesday on a vote that could change the nature of the common market and, possibly, the Government as well?

Mrs. Gorman: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's consistency on Europe, but not to that of the Labour party, which is just as divided on the issue. For it to have the brass neck to table a motion criticising the Government's attitude to Europe is an awful cheek. The hon. Gentleman knows that, and he will not trap my colleagues and me into giving such a guarantee. However, we hope that the Prime Minister, who will address the House in that debate on Wednesday, will give a further commitment on a single currency.

Mr. Tony Marlow: The Prime Minister is obviously considering that matter carefully and it is now apparent to the whole country that a single currency is about not economic but political issues. It is about whether we want to be part of a single United States of Europe dominated by Brussels. If, on Wednesday, our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that no Government of which he is Prime Minister could conceivably enter a single currency, would my hon. Friend then support the Government and oppose the Opposition motion?

Mrs. Gorman: I would certainly do so. That would be an enormous relief not just for my colleagues and me but for many people in the country, who want to see clearly which way the Conservative party and the Prime Minister are moving.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend also agree that it would greatly enhance the Government's authority in Wednesday's debate and the credibility of its European policies as a whole if the Government were to support the Bill and the concept of a referendum before we moved ahead to a single currency or proceeded further along the path of European integration?

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. My Bill is an olive branch to the Prime Minister from those of us who, although we did so on a matter of principle, were unfortunately deprived of the Whip. That has turned out to be nothing like as awful as it was meant to be, as it has allowed us to express our views more forthrightly.

Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend also agree that, for the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to tell his party at its conference that he would never be isolated in Europe is simply not good enough for the British people, who may need a Prime Minister who is prepared to be isolated in Europe on important issues?

Mrs. Gorman: We certainly do not argue about that. I have no time for the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), because he is hypocritical and wants to get into bed with the Europeans. He wants a marriage for life and wants to tie the British nation to a federal European Government with a single currency and the whole shebang.
We should stop flirting with the British people. It is all very well for the British Prime Minister to give us winks and nods across the bar when we, the customers on the other side, are wondering whether we should buy our pints there or not. If he clearly does not believe that we should have a marriage with Europe, he should let the people

have a say because this matter concerns our future. That is all that I am asking. We must have confidence in our people to decide on that, and any party that offers that proposition will gain the respect of the British people.

Ms Joyce Quin: Can the hon. Lady clear up a problem about which she was asked earlier but failed to answer? The referendum that she has proposed is described as a consultative one. Does she regard the result of it as binding?

Mrs. Gorman: When the hon. Lady reflects on that, she will understand that the result cannot be binding in law, nor would one expect that. It is the Prime Minister's right to negotiate, but I believe that he should do so having received more information from the people. A referendum result on the specific issue of Europe would tell the Prime Minister what the British people have in mind.
Throughout history, great empires have come and gone. It always has been a utopian dream that, if we all got together in some union, whether through conquest or assent, the opportunities of the individual states within it would be enhanced. The last of those empires was the great communist dream, which has finally collapsed, causing great harm to the people locked into it.
Be it five, 10 or 20 years down the road, I do not want our nation to have a crumbling market and to have lost its connections with our natural marketing partners because they were unable to enter our markets. I do riot want the standard of living of the British people to decline. I do not want their spirit to be suppressed, because they are getting awfully tired of being constantly cajoled and bullied into the idea that their future lies in Europe and nowhere else.
The British people have always had a strong entrepreneurial, buccaneering tendency which has done this country proud. We need to liberate that spirit again, but we cannot do it if we are meshed into the regulatory system of Europe. That system is like an octopus, because, as fast as one cuts off one bit of its tentacles, it sprouts another.
I can promise colleagues that a business man working in such an atmosphere finds that his daily round becomes a daily grind as he is immersed in more and more paperwork and subject to decisions made for him by people whose main interest is the creation and perpetration of regulations and not getting that business up and going. We need that entrepreneurial spirit for people to succeed and to have better lives.
The decisions about Europe are not just for the House alone, but for the people to make. I am asking my colleagues on both sides of the House to let us adopt the Bill and give the British people what I believe that they would now welcome: the opportunity to tell us, for a change, what they want for the future of their country in Europe.

Mr. Denis MacShane: I have studied the Bill carefully, because I support the sovereignty of the people and their right to decide in a variety of ways what their governance should be.
I have no objection in principle to a referendum, so I find myself in the Billericay-Bolsover camp and not in that of those who say that Parliament alone should decide such matters.
During the summer, I was pleased when my right hon., then hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) made it clear in his leadership campaign for the Labour party that a referendum would be included in our party's agenda. That was a positive statement, and at the time I deeply regretted that the Prime Minister knocked that suggestion back, scorned it and said that it was not appropriate. He is a Prime Minister, however, who runs after events. On Wednesday, although I doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will give a pledge to rule out forever participation in a single currency, I am sure that he will make some general commitment to a referendum.

Mr. Heald: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would rule it out in perpetuity?

Mr. MacShane: Does the hon. Gentleman mean a referendum or a single currency?

Mr. Heald: A single currency.

Mr. MacShane: Certainly not. We shall discuss the single currency issue later. This debate is about a referendum and is not a re-run of every aspect of the European question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I agree that the hon. Gentleman should stick to debating the Referendum Bill rather than the Referendum (Single Currency) Bill, which is the next Bill down for consideration.

Mr. MacShane: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my notes contain a mere passing reference to currency.
It is most singularly hypocritical for the Conservative supporters of the Bill to claim that they alone are seeking to give the people of the country some say over their destiny when, for 15 long years—I do not know when each of them entered Parliament—the Conservative Government have whittled away at the sovereign rights of the British people. They have abolished people's power to control themselves through local government; they have abolished the local authority of London, so that Britain's capital is the only capital without a mayor and a single governing authority; they have also abolished any democratic accountability in quangoland.

Mr. Michael Carttiss: Is restoring to school governors the ability to determine their own budgets and run their own schools without reference to local authorities an example of a return of democracy to the people, or its removal?

Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman must address that question to school governors who are currently writing in their thousands to the Secretary of State for Education complaining that it is one thing to give a certain limited authority to them as governors, but another to cut their budgets so that they have no ability to use that authority. In general, the Conservative Government have shown a contempt for democratic rights that is without parallel in the 20th century. Now some members of the Conservative party are calling for a referendum.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) asked a pertinent question about the consultative

nature of the referendum, but she got no answer. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr.Skinner) also asked a pertinent question about how the anti-Europeans on the Conservative Benches will vote on Wednesday—again, he got no answer.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) can tell me what the question on the referendum paper will be, because one cannot hold a referendum without defining that question. The form of the question is vital. According to the Bill, two questions will be put—I have yet to hear of a referendum on more than one question. According to subsection (3), if those questions are unsatisfactory, they
need not be in the exact words of the preceding subsection, so long as Her Majesty is satisfied that their wording reflects the true intent and spirit of this Act".
So, my goodness, we are going to ask Her Majesty to decide what the question should be. That will be a referendum horribilis for those at Buckingham palace, as they have to chew over the intent of the hon. Member for Billericay when she seeks to ask the people, via Her Majesty, what their future in Europe should be.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is being a little silly about the consultative nature of the referendum. Surely he must know that, if people voted for the option in clause 1(2)(b), there is no way in which Parliament could implement that result. All it would mean is that the Prime Minister would be given the authority to seek that option. In the same way, there is nothing that we can do about the export of live animals. If people voted for the option in subsection 2(b), all it means is that the Prime Minister and the Government would be given some suggestion as to what we want them to try to achieve in 1996 and thereafter. There is no way in which our Parliament could do anything else.

Mr. MacShane: But we are invited to treat the question of the referendum as a sublime and supreme consultation with the people about the future destiny and essence of the nation in which they live. The hon. Gentleman is referring to an early-day motion, which he can table tomorrow, to obtain as many signatures as he wants, which will give a fair idea, according to the number of Members of Parliament who sign it, what the people—or at least MPs—want the Prime Minister to take to the intergovernmental conference.
If we must return to paragraph (2)(b), I shall read it:
remain in the European Union, but only as a member of an association of states trading freely with one another, with substantial repatriation of sovereignty".
My learned friends the lawyers would have more than a field day discussing the meaning of that paragraph. It mentions
an association of states trading freely with one another".
That is not a referendum for England; that is a referendum for all 15 members of the European Union. They would need to agree to the arguments made in paragraph (2)(b) of the Bill.
That may be a good thing. It may be good to hold a Europewide referendum on one issue or another, but if the hon. Member for Billericay wants a Europewide referendum, I must tell her that the House has no power over the people of France, Germany, Sweden and so on.


She should get herself elected to the European Parliament and continue her arguments there if she wants Europewide referendums.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman is labouring on in a somewhat futile manner. He knows perfectly well the intent of the referendum. It is to ask the people whether they want a Heathite, Jenkinsite, Delorsite, Blairite European single state, or whether they want to be part of a single market, in which single market the rest of Europe can do precisely what it wants.

Mr. MacShane: I am responding to questions. I was trying to make progress with my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I realise now that we have a new paragraph (c), mentioning a Heathite, Blairite, Jenkinsite state. Perhaps we shall also have a new paragraph (d), mentioning a Marlowite, Taylorite, Gormanite, Skinnerite state.

Mr. Skinner: No.

Mr. MacShane: We shall have a new paragraph (e) for a Skinnerite state when that need arises.
When we consider Europe, whether as Members of Parliament or as citizens, we regard it as a mirror in which we see reflected many things that show a great uncertainty about the future of this country.
I pay tribute to the sincerity with which people hold their opinions. An unpleasant remark was attributed to the Prime Minister about men in white coats coming for an hon. Member who was anti-Europe, I think mainly on agricultural issues. I found that deeply unpleasant. Everyone elected to the House has an absolute right and duty to express their opinions, and their opinions should be taken with all seriousness.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Could the hon. Gentleman, and those who think like him, just try to make a small mental jump and to cease, once and for all, using the expression, "anti-Europe"? Those of us on both sides of the House who are sceptical about closer European union, in many cases have a great many friends on the continent, like the continent and have got nothing against the continent, but we quite simply cannot bear our country being told what to do. Will the hon. Gentleman stop saying "anti-Europe", because it is misleading and it is false?

Mr. MacShane: "Anti-Europe" conveys, more accurately than the rather silly word "sceptical", some—not all—of the passions that drive people in the debate. When I consider other European countries, and I consider the National Front in France and the Communist parties, who are so hostile to the European Union, I find there, I am afraid, a tinge of profound anti-Europeanism.
I have an affection for the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). We share a great interest in allotments and gardening—

Mr. Jessel: And in skiing.

Mr. MacShane: —and, indeed, in healthy outdoor sports. Therefore, if he and his friends will stop using the term "federalist"; if they will stop using the phrase "selling out to Brussels" and all the other clichés that they attach to the opinions of any of us who support the European Union; if the hon. Gentleman will sign a

Trappist oath not to use those words and pass it round all his colleagues, I promise him that I will stop using the word "anti-European".
As we look into Europe, we look into a mirror that reflects our uncertainties about the future of our country. We see the fault lines of Britain. I see a Britain centralised, unreformed, hierarchical, socially deferential. I speak very much as a republican, although I want to emphasise that I think that a modern republic can have a monarch as its head of state, just as, in France, what is in effect a monarchy can be in the formal constitution of a republic. I see the fault lines of a Britain that is unsure of its destination and destiny, and unsure of what the future organisation of governance of our state should be.
That lack of certainty is visible, above all, in the Conservative party. Perhaps I might try to unite the Members sitting there, so kindly listening to me, because it is obvious that the Tory party is tired of government. It yearns for opposition. The certainties of Thatcherism are replaced by the mediocrities of Majorism, yet the Conservative party has a majority. The Conservative party is condemned to administer a political economy the modernity and complexity of which it no longer comprehends, and to rule a people who actively detest the corruption and greed that pour through every pore of the Tory skin.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Bill is to
Provide for the holding of a referendum on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union.
Will the hon. Member address himself to the Bill?

Mr. MacShane: I have taken a large number of interventions that were not about a referendum. I would have finished by now, were it not for those interventions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is a matter for the hon. Member to decide whether he takes interventions or not, and, when he takes them, whether he responds.

Mr. Waterson: rose—

Mr. MacShane: I give way to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson).

Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman is talking about divisions that are allegedly in the Conservative party, but I wonder where he is hiding the 59 of his colleagues who defied the party Whip and voted against the Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not debating divisions in any party, whether it is the Government side or the Opposition side. We are debating the Bill, and now hon. Members must stick to it.

Mr. MacShane: As William Butler Yeats once said— [Interruption.]—
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
On the issue of a referendum, we do have passionate intensity in hostility to Europe, which is manifested in the debate.
I want the best to discover some of their convictions. I want, perhaps next Wednesday, arguments to be advanced by more senior Members of Parliament that will put an end to the divisions on Europe, which manifest themselves in this morning's debate.
It is obvious to me—I return to the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Twickenham—that the challenge is not to force Britain or Europe into some Procrustean federal bed. The challenge is more exciting, and it is not met by the Referendum Bill. The challenge is to create a new relationship between nations, peoples and, above all, values. There will be more hope for our country in searching for the common values in Europe to take us forward. As Edmund Burke said:
All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter.
Compromise with the other European nations is essential for the creation of a economic and social cohesion in our country.

Mr. Marlow: The British people are concerned about Europe, which is why they should have a referendum. One reason why they are concerned about Europe is barter, the principle on which Europe is governed. The French said that they would allow European elections to go ahead last year if they could be guaranteed that a third Parliament building costing £300 million would be built in Strasbourg—that is barter and corruption.

Mr. MacShane: The Prime Minister said that Europe could have a new president last summer provided it was not Mr. Dehaene. I do not know whether that was barter or corruption—he was simply exercising his veto, which every other European state accepted. The Prime Minister thought that Mr. Santer was the right man in the right place at the right time—he does not appear to be any longer.
As Edmund Burke said, the essence of all social cohesion is a form of compromise. In my sincere judgment, the Bill's promoter and supporters are not interested in compromise. They want Britain out of Europe, while the rest of the peoples of Europe and a majority of people in this country want Europe to develop.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker have been fierce with me about straying from the Bill, but the hon. Member for Billericay spoke at length on the subject of a single currency. I wish to mention it briefly—I promise that I shall not take more than 30 seconds. I understand why some Conservative Members want to keep their hands on our currency. It is, and has been in recent years, the private plaything of speculators in the City—the surest way to quick money in a sick City of London.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will remember that Harold Wilson blamed the decline of the pound on the unnamed gnomes of Zurich. Today we can name the gnome of Davos, the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), whose remarks in Switzerland earlier this month about how the Government would veto developments in Europe, led to the crisis of confidence in the pound. We can name the gnome of Great George street, the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), the Chief Secretary of the Ritz, who single-handedly drove down the value of the pound with his remarks about a European currency and eternity.
Those Cabinet members are the toast of every German banker—between them, they speak not a word of German, yet they serve the deustchmark better than Herr Tittemeyer, the president of the Bundesbank, or

Chancellor Kohl. Truly, we can say with Schiller, "Mit solcher Dummheit Kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens"— against such stupidity, even the gods fight in vain.
The exercise that the right hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate and for Thanet, South engaged in was not just about Europe, just as today's referendum debate is not about Europe—it is about the war of succession inside the Conservative party. It is a war of position, a search for the right words for populism, a rehearsal for nationalist flag-waving, which will do our country great harm.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): Does the hon. Gentleman think that, after his speech today, any self-respecting Conservative Member of Parliament could possibly go through the same Division Lobby as him next week?

Mr. MacShane: I admire the Minister's efforts to restore unity to his party—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will now return to the subject of the Bill.

Mr. MacShane: I have no doubt that there will be a majority for the Prime Minister next Wednesday—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not talking about next Wednesday, which will look after itself. We are debating the Bill. I do not want to have to tell the hon. Gentleman again.

Mr. MacShane: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was taught to be polite and have responded to interventions, not one of which was on the referendum. Therefore, I am stuck—I do not want to say that I will accept no more interventions—perhaps I should do that as it would solve the problem. I shall speak simply to the Bill.

Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is rapidly becoming a farce.

Mr. MacShane: With respect to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), I should like to finish and let other hon. Members make their speeches. Not one of the interventions has been to the point and I have been justifiably rebuked from the Chair for my attempts to be polite and to accept those interventions.
We look to the Bill for some line on Europe that we can support. The Bill searches for some mechanism to bring a divided party out of its troubles and for a scapegoat to divert attention. What greater scapegoat is there than Europe? Cohesion, equilibrium and consensus are important to any development in the economic or social policies which are important to our country. They require consensus and compromise with all our partners, not just in Europe, but elsewhere.
The right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, responding to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms


Abbott), described himself, in an affectionate way during a friendly exchange, as an immigrant on the make. I am the son of immigrants—

Mr. Donald Anderson: From the European Union.

Mr. MacShane: No, not from the European Union—from east Europe and other countries.
I appeal to the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate not to wrap himself in the nationalist flag or betray the republican virtues of his lineage or his legitimate striving to realise his ambition to unleash the base passions that a nation which is more and more divided into two halves is likely to produce. I am profoundly proud to be British and proud to be European. I am proud that my wife is Asian and proud of my love for the United States and the many friends I have there.
If I thought that the Bill would in any way advance my Britishness and my pride—in where I come from, where my children come from and the hopes I have for the world in which they will live—I would back it. The Bill does not achieve those aims, and I hope that it will not advance further today.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am grateful for being called, and I should like to be brief. I may therefore appear to be discourteous by not taking interventions—I shall rephrase that, as I was speaking in a maladroit manner. I do not mean that I shall take no interventions, but I might not take all or most.

Mr. Waterson: What percentage of interventions does my hon. Friend estimate he will take?

Mr. Dykes: It depends whether they are in Euro-currency or national currency.
The experience of the patient Deputy Speaker—indeed, the Chamber—is that, if one accepts all interventions, speeches become very long, which is unfair on other colleagues who are waiting to speak. When my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is wearing his suede shoes, I know that there will be trouble. We shall see what happens if he is called to speak later.
I respect the sincerity of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who is the promoter of the Bill, and her passion and skill in making her arguments. However, her arguments are so eccentric and zany that I am sure that they will have a deeply disturbing effect on most sensible people in the community.
The hon. Lady, who is an extremely successful modern entrepreneur, espouses bizarre arguments that are based on a mindset from the past. They do not apply to the modern European Union as it is now developing. I can understand the hon. Lady's anxieties and those of her sponsors—a very distinguished list of colleagues—some of whom may try to speak in the debate today if you call them, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I make no apology for my intention to use the phrase "anti-European". I do not mean to be offensive, but I think that it is the appropriate phrase to use to describe the small minority of my colleagues who are causing a lot of trouble in the parliamentary party and elsewhere over the European issue.
In the past two years, the Government have made a terrible mistake in not explaining boldly and forthrightly their enthusiasm for and positive stance on European matters. If the most senior members of the Cabinet and other distinguished members of the Government—such as my hon. Friend the Minister, who will give the official Government view later in the debate—create a vacuum of timidity, dithering and hesitation on the European issue, they will create a climate of hesitation, fear and anxiety among even the most educated members of society, let alone among those who have not had those educational advantages. I feel sorry for the vast majority of the public who have not been given the facts about the European question; they have merely received the poison propaganda.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) agrees with me from a different vantage point. That problem has occurred in other countries as well, and the Bill presents an opportunity to try to deal with it here. I understand that, but I do not think that it is the right way to go about it. Even with the recent Jopling reforms, I believe that there should be more private Members' time in this, the most ancient of European legislatures. If future Governments, of whatever colour, could be less obsessed with huge quantities of legislation which is poorly drafted, badly digested and, imperfectly passed and which must be redrafted a short time after its passage, we would have the opportunity to explore greater truths.
I respect the background to the Bill and, if it has a "populist" tag, I accept that as well. "Populist" has become a derogatory term. The former Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, who is now in the other place, explained the Single European Act in comprehensive detail. With the help of the necessary whipping—which we know from our both bitter and congenial experience is a necessary concomitant of the process—the legislation was passed and it led to the passage of the Maastricht treaty. Maastricht passed through the logical second stage of the legislative process, enjoying the growing enthusiasm of other member states. My anti-European colleagues must accept that reality.
However, the Government explanations faded away and, for reasons that I cannot fathom, the weakness and dithering began. I cannot work out why the Government foolishly chose to follow that path and thought that it would prove successful. We all know from our own experience—national, regional or local—that if we believe a cause is just, we put forward our arguments very powerfully. We must sell the case for Europe very powerfully in this instance. Perhaps a minority will disagree, but most people will be convinced by the passion of the argument.
Instead of that, the Government have dithered and we have reached a halfway house on the European issue. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister—I do not criticise him personally—will reply to today's debate by performing a wonderfully skilful tightrope act, which will impress us immensely, because that is the Government's brief.
The debate on this excellent Bill will be inevitably overshadowed by next Wednesday's debate—because of what you said earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall refer to it no further. Today we must deal only with the details of the Bill. I share the misgivings of those who claim that it is impossible to consider in advance the form and structure of the referendum question. I know that the


Public Bill Office probably helped my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay to draft the Bill, but the words in clause 1 are an absolute nonsense. It is not possible to treat the Bill seriously because of the way in which it is drafted.

Mrs. Gorman: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mr. Dykes: As my hon. Friend is the Bill's promoter, I know that I ought to give way to her. However, I will pursue my point a little further, and perhaps she will decide that she does not want to intervene.
That problem can be dealt with by sending the legislation to Committee, and I welcome that process as a genuine parliamentarian rather than a party politician. I hope that my hon. Friend will not suggest that we consider this constitutional measure in a Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Would the hon. Gentleman volunteer for the Committee?

Mr. Dykes: The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) is being mischievous; I did not mean that I would go that far. As we considered its details, we could have considerable constitutional fun in Committee with this badly drafted Bill.
It would be extremely difficult to frame a referendum question correctly. It is absurd to suggest that, for some reason, it could guide the Executive before the negotiations in 1996. If we accepted that argument, it would logically follow that we would have to hold another referendum after the event to see whether the Government's negotiations had produced the right result, and then we would have to hold referendums every six months, or perhaps yearly, just to keep up with future developments. It is utter rubbish in constitutional terms. It is a chimera that it allows the people of this country to have genuine democratic input into the decision-making process.

Mrs. Gorman: I would like to put on record the fact that the Bill was drafted for me, in co-operation with my views, by the distinguished parliamentary draftsman, Mr. Godfrey Carter. He has served the House for many years and he is a master of his craft. I think that it ill behoves the hon. Gentleman to pour scorn on the way in which the Bill is drafted.

Mr. Dykes: My hon. Friend misunderstands what I have said. I was referring not to the literal wording of the text, but to the concepts behind the words.

Mr. Carttiss: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). I have sought to obtain the details of next week's business from the Vote Office and I have been told that I must get them from the Whips Office. I believe that this is a matter for the Chair, but I raise it when the Leader of the House is in the Chamber. I know that that information is in Hansard—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) is aware that there is a copy of next week's business in yesterday's

Hansard. I repeat that we are not discussing Wednesday's debate this morning; we are discussing the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman).

Mr. Carttiss: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not asking for a copy of Wednesday's business; I am saying that an independent Member of the House should not be told to obtain the paper which sets out the business of the whole week—which is available to all Members of Parliament on a single piece of paper—from the Whips Office. The Vote Office has a copy of that paper, but I have been denied access to it and have been told to get it from the Whips Office. I do not have the Whip, and as an independent Member of Parliament I should have the opportunity to receive the same papers, in addition to Hansard, as are available to other Members of Parliament.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, I definitely agree with the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth. He must have the opportunity to receive such papers—by whatever avenue. I have no doubt that those on the Government Front Bench has taken note of what he has said, and I will make inquiries about the matter.

Mr. Dykes: I am glad that the my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House heard that point of order because it touches on the question of the rights on Fridays of hon. Members, irrespective of their adhesion to a particular party. I am not sure that my hon. Friend is correct, but it is possible for even a private Member's Bill to be concerned with high constitutional matters.
If the Bill received a Second Reading and went into Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay would find all the fault lines emerging. I am convinced that the Bill would be destroyed in Committee, so some hon. Members, in a Machiavellian way, might welcome it progressing to that stage.
The seemingly easy suggestion of a referendum and its particular timing is so problematical that my hon. Friend's sense of fairness will induce her to agree that that is where the major difficulties arise. That apart, the referendum's substance and the question that it would pose is so fraught that the whole thing just unravels, and one realises that one cannot proceed without doing the very thing that concerns some of my hon. Friends and certain Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who has left the Chamber—totally undermining and destroying the sacred sovereignty of the House and ourselves, who are charged by our electors to make decisions.
Although this has been said many times, it is worth reminding the House that the notion of a referendum on a particular policy or constitutional arrangement with which one personally disagrees is a convenient but dangerous path to constitutional and parliamentary ruin. This country does not, by and large, hold referendums except in special, unusual or esoteric circumstances such as those of Northern Ireland, and there have been one or two failed attempts in the past. The Labour Government's big mistake was to hold a referendum in 1975.
A referendum was not held to decide this country's participation in world war 2—the most fundamental, existential decision made on behalf of any nation by any Government. I concede that many people believed in appeasement in 1935, 1936 and 1937, and I am ashamed to say that some of them were Conservatives. Such people


might have decided that it would be a good thing to do a deal with the Nazi third Reich, keep out of the European cauldron, preserve our territory and other world interests, and be isolationist in that war—as some people suggested later.

Mr. Jessel: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dykes: Not at the moment.
That idea sounds phantasmagorical today, but one can see how changing circumstances distort the fundament of the original notion of a referendum. I believe that I am correct in thinking that we did not hold a referendum on joining NATO. I regard the defence of the realm as a much more existential matter even than being in the European Union.

Mr. Alan Duncan: Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene?

Mr. Dykes: I will not.

Mr. Waterson: He never gives way.

Mr. Dykes: I do, frequently. That is one of the problems. [Interruption.] I shall continue speaking above the heckling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It does not worry me at all. In fact, I rather like it.
Under NATO, we could have been sent to war by a foreign general, but he would have been American, so that was all right—just as long as he was not European. Conveniently, a foreign commander-in-chief who happened to be American could send us to war, with Parliament not even meeting to debate and discuss the matter. Apparently, that would not be considered a loss of sovereignty. The most existential matter—the survival of a nation under attack—is not considered an issue of sovereignty or reason for a referendum.

Mr. lain Duncan Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dykes: No.

Mr. Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend is misleading the House. He must give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Did I hear the hon. Gentleman suggest that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) misled the House? If so, the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Duncan Smith: He did.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, on reflection, might wish to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Duncan Smith: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if an hon. Member says that something is correct when it is not correct, surely he must be misleading the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All in the House are hon. Members, and I am sure that the hon. Member for

Harrow, East had no intention of misleading the House. I invite the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) to withdraw his remark.

Mr. Duncan Smith: I cast no aspersions on my hon. Friend. I simply make the point that I believe that his comments misled the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will concede that the hon. Member for Harrow, East might inadvertently have misled the House, that would be acceptable.

Mr. Duncan Smith: I do, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Dykes: That wasted valuable minutes.
I believe that I am correct in thinking that referendums were not held on lesser matters also crucial to the future of this country, such as Suez. There was no referendum on the Single European Act, which was just as important as Maastricht. That returns to the point that the Government and hon. Members have not properly explained European matters. The public are right to be angry and indignant. We parliamentarians must decide the best mechanism for coping with that problem.
My hon. Friend the Bill's promoter should not misunderstand my motives in hesitating over a referendum. Leaving European matters for a moment, it is interesting to reflect that we would not dream of holding a referendum on capital punishment, which many people might think justified. I shall comment later on the European Union's constitutional development.
Contrary to my views of the Bill's substance, if it receives a Second Reading, I shall welcome the opportunity to debate it further. I would not be averse to a referendum, from the point of view of the full public campaign that is needed to put over the arguments for and against Europe. That would at long last give a proper opportunity, I hope on an all-party basis, to make positive arguments about the European Union, which entails no loss of sovereignty for this country, but means closer and closer, partly integrated, co-operation, where necessary, between friendly member states in a friendly European Union, with countries and peoples actually liking and getting on with each other. That was the whole point of our original membership after 12 years of agonising delay and negotiations—a solemn decision made by Parliament on behalf of the British people.
A referendum campaign would turn around public opinion from being hesitant and nervous about Europe, which I understand, to being extremely positive. As chairman of the European Movement, I would inevitably welcome the Bill progressing through further stages, while not being intrinsically supportive of its content. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay now understands that distinction. It would be going too far for me to approve her Bill's content, but I support the Bill going forward.
I remember the dotty Labour Government's referendum of 1975, when public opinion was strongly against the renegotiated terms, but I suspect that it was also against our incipient, brand new membership of the then European Community. Look how public opinion turned around. The European Movement had a fabulous public sector budget to stage an all-party campaign. The great and good and all the decent people came out of the woodwork, instead of some of the maniacs, and there was a proper campaign. Look at the result.
The same would happen now, but now it would be even more difficult to frame the referendum's questions. It was simple for Labour to hold a referendum for the same purposes—its riven parliamentary party was Labour's motivation for a referendum. The idea of a referendum from some of our more eccentric Conservative colleagues is also to deal with divisions in the parliamentary party and to some extent outside.
The questions for that earlier referendum were much easier to frame after renegotiating membership than would be the case now, particularly a question on a single currency. The mind boggles, not only at its effect on our national currency—and I am patriotically proud of our ancient sterling, which was a world currency and still is to some extent, at the margin. It is tragic to remind the House that sterling has lost 90 per cent. of its value since 1949, when the deutschmark started.
What fantasy world are my colleagues defending with the nonsense that there could be a referendum on a single currency? That would be even more dubious than a referendum on the questions in the Bill. That is why, even if the Bill is granted a Second Reading, the notions underlying it have to be resisted. I do not want to sound anti-democratic or suggest that one should not want the people to have a say; I believe that the people should have a say through Parliament and their elected representatives.
If there were a referendum, we would campaign vigorously for the correct outcome. I believe that Europe should be an all-party matter, as it is in most other member states, and as Northern Ireland is and always has been. In the last German general and European elections, there was no difference at all between the main political parties but, when I mentioned that to one of my colleagues, the response was, "Germany is not a real democracy like us, old boy." I do not want to sound condescending, but that is the corrosive reaction of colleagues who do not understand sufficiently what is happening in other member states.
Although I admire the noble motives that led my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay to draft the Bill, its final weakness is that it would mean that we wanted to act on our own while other member states, without any fear of loss of sovereignty, wanted to proceed with arrangements for the European Union for the greater strength and prosperity of them all. That cannot be gainsaid by even the most fanatical anti-European hon. Member. Britain would be left in isolation, which would mean the ruination of our national currency.

11 am

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I have long sympathised with the views of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) on the development of the European Union, so it is a little disappointing to have to disagree with many of the arguments that he has deployed today about referendums.
The referendum has an important place in British constitutional arrangements and its place should be strengthened as we approach significant constitutional changes. Such arguments were deployed in a debate initiated by the Liberal Democrat party on the development of the European Union. My right hon. and hon. Friends cogently made the general case for

referendums, and the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and some of her colleagues were kind enough to support us on that occasion. It is therefore with some regret that I find that I cannot take the road that she has signed, for reasons that I shall develop.
I believe that the hon. Member for Billericay said that the Bill seeks to strengthen the Prime Minister's hand in the forthcoming intergovernmental conferences by reflecting the views of the British people. As such, I believe it to be more of an attempt to establish an opinion poll than a true referendum. Referendums are best held to present the public with a choice between a decision to maintain the constitutional status quo or a decision to accept a new and clear proposal, which would enable them to decide whether they wanted to take that step. The Bill does not offer such a clear choice because it does not offer the maintenance of the status quo as an alternative.
The Bill hypothesises that there might be changes to which the public would be opposed, but it is not clear what those changes might be. The changes are presented so hypothetically that it is difficult for the public to decide what is in fact on offer. I do not think that the Prime Minister's hand would be strengthened at the intergovernmental conferences by the holding of this sort of official opinion poll on two propositions, neither of which represents the current position or the possible future position, following the negotiations. Indeed, I think that such an opinion poll would confound and confuse the public and the Prime Minister even more.

Mr. Carttiss: I know that it is not an exact parallel, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that, when the Danish Prime Minister negotiated allegedly better terms for Denmark at the Edinburgh summit in 1992, his hand was strengthened considerably by the desire of the rest of the European leaders at the summit to satisfy the Danish electorate who had said no to the Maastricht treaty in the referendum held in Denmark before the Edinburgh summit? The result was that the Danish Prime Minister held another referendum on the new terms that he said he had gained at the Edinburgh conference. If that referendum strengthened the Danish Prime Minister's hand, why should not the referendum proposed in the Bill strengthen our Prime Minister's hand at the intergovernmental conference next year?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that the two cases were not exactly parallel and, of course, they are not. What was negotiated and what the Danish Prime Minister proposed was certain, but the Bill presents us with a series of extremely hypothetical propositions of such abstraction that it would be hard for the public to know exactly what they were being asked to approve. That is why I do not think that a pre-legislative referendum on the European Union makes sense. I use the word "pre-legislative" in the sense of an agreement between those empowered under European Union arrangements to take decisions on behalf of participating nations.
There is a powerful case for a referendum should the intergovernmental conference result in propositions that would fundamentally alter the balance of constitutional power between Parliaments and European Union institutions of government. There has been too much reform by a process of "grandmother's footsteps", whereby Ministers have collectively crept towards their goal of European Union, but, when anyone looks at what


they are doing, they say that they have not moved. The reality is that significant moves have been and are being made all the time.
I served as a junior Minister for five years in the previous Labour Government and I regularly attended meetings of the Agriculture Council, perhaps as often as every second month. I was conscious of the fact that significant decisions were being taken which had a binding effect on the House. It was shortly after the referendum to which the hon. Member for Harrow, East referred that those decisions were, in a sense, ratified by decisions taken by the Government but also by the country in the referendum of 1975.

Mr. Dykes: All treaty arrangements have that effect. Decisions made among Governments have a binding effect on our Parliament and others. I do not see a problem. Would it not have been fairer to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) that referendums were compulsory in Denmark and Ireland only because of their written constitutions? France held a voluntary referendum, which resulted in chaos and mayhem.

Mr. Maclennan: I do not think that the way in which other countries handle such problems should necessarily guide us as we decide the best way to achieve constitutional change. I wish that the distribution of powers were set out more clearly. The frequent changes of the past decade, including the accretion of power by central Government and the winding-up of local authorities such as the Greater London council, have been made without the safeguard of a written constitution or the holding of a referendum to pronounce on whether those changes were acceptable. That is a very unsatisfactory arrangement.

Mr. Roger Knapman: If there should be a referendum when there is constitutional change, I wonder what happened to the hon. Gentleman's party just two years ago. There was just such a vote during the passage of the Maastricht treaty Bill, and some of us voting then felt slightly lonely in the Division Lobbies, possibly because most of the Liberal Members were not there at the time.

Mr. Maclennan: It is true that there were differences of opinion in my party about that at the time, but our view has been much influenced by the developments that have followed, and by a sense that what was done in the name of the country at that time did not have the fullhearted consent even of those who allegedly supported the governing party.
That that is so is made manifest by this Bill, which is supported by eight Members of Parliament, none of whom now belongs to the governing party. I am baffled to know how they can feel that this Bill will strengthen the Prime Minister's hand at the intergovernmental conference. It is just a further display of how the Conservatives—clause 1(2) sums this up—tend to fight like ferrets in a sack. I cannot see how this sort of disarray helps the Prime Minister—or the Minister who will have to answer the debate.
I hope that I have adequately explained why I favour a referendum on the outcome of the IGC, if it involves major constitutional change that significantly alters the balance of sovereign power as between this country and the European Union.
I do not believe that we should have referendums every few years just to take the temperature of the country on the current state of European legislation. In so far as it simply carries out earlier decisions of Parliament to give effect to agreements that have been reached, it is only doing what it is constitutionally empowered to do. We should not hold referendums simply to try to reverse what has been done by the process of grandmother's footsteps, unless there is a clear alternative. This Bill certainly does not provide one, and that is perhaps its greatest weakness.
Clause 1(2) offers hypothetical alternatives: the development of a full European Union, which, if we are to believe what the Government have said, is not likely to come about as a result of the IGC; or remaining in the European Union,
but only as a member of an association of states trading freely with one another, with substantial repatriation of sovereignty".
Anything less precise than that would he hard to draft—even with the assistance of Mr. Godfrey Carter, who was apparently prayed in aid by the hon. Member for Billericay.
I could not at all understand what the hon. Lady said about free markets and free trade. She said that free markets were not about level playing fields. She said that they are about giving our businesses an advantage to trade and to prosper—that at least was the gist of it. That struck me as a strange idea indeed. Free trade is either free or it is fettered by obstacles to trade. Anyone who wants to remove obstacles to trade must be in the business of regulation.
The so-called Euro-sceptics who do not like to be called anti-European have to come to terms with this conundrum. If they want free trade, there will also have to be regulation to ensure that it happens; otherwise national Governments will erect obstacles, such as the French provisions to exclude our chickens or eggs on the grounds of some health hazard to the French eating public. That is why there has had to be regulation in Europe: to free up trade.
Sometimes these regulatory arrangements can be extremely irritating to people in the business—that is understandable—but they exist to enhance genuine free trade.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Of course what the hon. Gentleman says is true, but our anxiety about the single market derives from the fact that it is a serious endeavour to take away natural advantage. It is the elements of natural advantage within economies which make for vigorous free trade and enable us to survive economically. Natural advantage is therefore to be encouraged, not to be diminished or done away with—that was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay.

Mr. Maclennan: If we had to rely on our natural advantages, without the protection of free trade, we might find that we were suffering from a series of diminishing assets. Our pastoral economy, for instance, might easily disappear. The New Zealanders' capacity to breed sheep, and the Australians' capacity to breed cattle, are considerably greater than the capacities of those who raise these animals in the Cotswolds or in East Anglia. We are not in the middle ages any more. It was to protect and adjust the European economies that have been heavily dependent on such activities that the common agricultural


policy was introduced. It has wrought a remarkable transformation, from over-dependence on peasant agriculture to highly sophisticated industrial economies.
Circumstances have changed, and the CAP has had to change with them, becoming less protectionist. In time, therefore, we may view the prospect of greater trade between countries with natural advantages, such as Australia and New Zealand, and Europe itself. That is a welcome process—hence the willingness on the part of the European Union to adapt the CAP to take account of change.
The hon. Lady's theoretical idea—that free markets are not about level playing fields—will not come as music to the ears of the business men to whom she referred and who are alleged to be hostile to the European Union. I, too, for my own reasons travel around the country talking to business men. Although many of them find the regulatory regimes of the EU—especially those allegedly introduced for consumer protection purposes—extremely irritating, I have not heard any of them say that they oppose the objective of a level playing field. But the hon. Lady advanced that as an argument in favour of clause 1(2)(b).
The second major obscurity in the clause is the phrase "substantial repatriation of sovereignty". That seems to me about as long as a piece of string. I do not know what the Government—it would be the Government who would have to decide what that meant and recommend it to Parliament—would make of such a phrase.
Does it mean that we would exclude the European Court from the interpretation of enactments by the Council of Ministers? Does it mean that we would deny the European Court the authority to call to account other countries that break agreed rules? That would certainly be a "substantial repatriation of sovereignty." It would also amount to substantial destruction of the whole point of having a European Union and of the effectiveness of the system of reaching agreements that are then enforceable.
What other substantial repatriations might the hon. Lady have in mind? Does she wish to confine the decision-making process of the EU institutions to a narrow range of subjects?
It has been shown by the EU how, through the liberalisation of such measures as I have referred to—for example, health regulations bearing on the import of chickens—free trade can be destroyed. It may be irksome to have to deal with such regulations and perhaps it would be nicer to handle them locally. I can understand that that is so from the consumer's point of view. That is why the EU increasingly is asking itself—the matter was properly raised by the hon. Member for Billericay—what matters are fit and sensible for decision by national Parliaments, or even local authorities, rather than by European Ministers following proposals from the Commission.
That concept of what is called subsidiarity is becoming increasingly significant in the development of Community legislation, and properly so. The arguments of people like the hon. Member for Billericay fortify the efforts of those who, like myself, want to see the Community develop rationally, taking big decisions about big issues, and being effective in areas where by ourselves we find it more difficult to be effective.
I shall cite one example to illustrate the point. The EU has been massively ineffective in assisting the peace process in the Balkans. Member Governments recognised constituent parts of Yugoslavia at different times. They did not seek to co-ordinate, never mind to agree, foreign policies at the beginning of their ghastly embroglio. It seems entirely desirable that they should agree such policies if we are as member states to be effective in our conduct of foreign affairs and defence of our frontiers in Europe. We shall not see that process assisted by stripping down the EU and by what the hon. Lady has described as a "substantial repatriation of sovereignty".
I disagree with clause 1(3), which states that the interpretation of "substantial repatriation" would be a matter for "Her Majesty". I assume that the hon. Lady means the Government, who must be "satisfied that their wording"— that of the questions—reflects
the true intent and spirit of this Act".
Anything less tangible or less capable of being tied down than that would be hard to draft. It is so vague as to be more an effort in propaganda than in legislation. As an effort in propaganda, it reflects the lack of candour that has characterised too much of the debate about Europe.
The hon. Member for Billericay and her colleagues have registered their disagreements about how we may go in Europe in the forthcoming intergovernmental conferences and about where we are. In practice, they want to wipe out history. They do not want to make the EU work better. They would like to hold it at arm's length. I would like to hear the hon. Lady and those who support her say that they would prefer Britain to stand alone, or England to stand alone. The hon. Lady spoke of being English. That would be refreshing candour. I think that the Bill is designed to promote English nationalism.

Mr. Baldry: Surely it is a bit rich to talk about candour and accuse my hon. Friends of lack of candour when the hon. Gentleman's party sought the other week to cobble together a deal with the Labour party to embarrass the Government on a referendum. The word "candour" comes badly from his lips, does it not?

Mr. Maclennan: There was no reason why the Government should not have supported my party's motion, never mind the Labour party. The so-called negotiations were merely a matter of informing the Labour party of what we intended to do. It chose not to support us, and that was a matter for the Labour party. The House carried the motion with the support of a number of Members who take different views on Europe. It was a straightforward and honourable course of action. The Minister has made just about the most foolish intervention in the debate. "Fatuous" is the word that can be used to describe it in a language that I understand and is, unlike the German that we heard earlier, permitted in the House.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: It was only last week that the hon. Gentleman's leader, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), was identifying the great problem of European development—the failure to secure consent. Yet the hon. Gentleman says that everything that has gone before is secured. He seems to be saying that we can talk about developments in the future, and that consent may be required for them.
In truth, the Maastricht treaty was never bedded down. Part of the anguish that we see on both sides of the House and wider, across Europe, is the failure so far to have secured consent. The importance of the Bill is that it is signifying yet again—there is no other way in which it can be done—that the holding of a referendum requires proper debate and analysis, and that the institutional arrangements secured for Brussels so far are not acceptable because they confound the most important principle of the House, which is the democratic imperative.

Mr. Maclennan: I agree with quite a lot that the hon. Gentleman has said. That is not surprising, because I quite often agree with him on several issues, and especially on civil libertarian matters, of which he is a notable supporter.
The hon. Gentleman seems to have an underlying belief that developments in Europe are all going in the same direction. There, I think, he is unduly pessimistic. It is my firm belief that the IGCs should be proceeding in two directions, and the first is in strengthening the role of the EU to take action in a democratic way, being accountable to its democratically elected institutions, in areas of policy where national Governments are not capable of being effective.
Secondly, and at the same time, I would look to the IGCs to transfer power back from Brussels, or from wherever the Council of Ministers may be meeting, to national Governments in areas where it is unnecessary for it to legislate. Regulations on the decibel levels of lawnmowers is one of the famous examples.

Mr. Dykes: Fatally, the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the one example which is totally at variance with the truth. British lawnmower manufacturers asked the politicians here in Westminster to keep quiet and to stop interfering with the directive, which was helping our exports to the rest of the Community.

Mr. Maclennan: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's knowledge. He is more constantly involved in these detailed matters than I am.
There are a number of examples, however, where it is up to member states to decide what standards of safety, health and consumer protection are appropriate for them. There has been a degree of meddlesomeness in some areas which has simply been not necessary. The principle is clear, and it is becoming increasingly accepted by the European Commission. The principle should be accepted also by the Council of Ministers and fortified in the discussions.

Mr. Dykes: Legislation is now falling off because the single market has been put in place, and that is welcome for all sorts of reason, including those enunciated by the hon. Gentleman. The Commission has not suddenly surrendered its activities, and more Commission proposals have been put forward at the request of member Governments in the past 10 years.

Mr. Maclennan: There is scope for considering the appropriateness of harmonising provisions, and there are questions about whether matters of standards of health, for example, should be considered under the social chapter, or are better handled at a national level. Some matters should be handled at a European level, because if there is not a harmonised provision there will be a distortion of trade.

On other matters, it demonstrably makes sense to allow provisions to be settled by national parliaments, or by local authorities.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is too fearful of the way in which the European Union is moving, and he is not recognising the extent to which power can be transferred down as well as up. Although I may not have chosen apt examples of the principle—the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Dykes) was entitled to draw attention to that—the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills should accept that it is unreasonable to assume that the EU will become a monolithic and more undemocratic organisation.
I hope that the IGC will make the EU a more democratic institution, and that it will strengthen the powers of the European Parliament. It could also strengthen the control of the peoples of Europe over the election of the European Commission to make it seem less like a bureaucracy and more like a representative institution. We would like the Government to push for those developments during the European IGCs, and that would be the time decide whether we have gone far enough.
I have gone on rather too long, and I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion. We must ask whether we have gone far enough in democratising the European Union. We should ask the British people if they are satisfied with what has been done, and then would be the time to have a referendum.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I liked the hon. Gentleman's point about "grandmother's footsteps". Nothing happens, and then suddenly one finds that something has happened. We discovered that a fortnight ago on immigration. We were told at the time of the Single European Act that we could keep our frontier controls, but now we are told that we cannot keep them. Grandmother is alive and well and living in Europe.
It is an understatement to say that the British people are out of sympathy with our current arrangements with Europe. The evidence is growing every day that the people are increasingly out of sympathy with more and more aspects of European policy, and that those aspects are becoming increasingly unacceptable to the people of this country.
We have arrived where we are today without consent. The British people were consulted once, and were asked whether they wanted to be a part of a European single market. They agreed that they did want to be a part of it. But since that time, we have been led unknowingly by a series of measures and devices almost to the point of no return where, if we do not say stop, we will become a part of a single unified federal European state. I believe that that is the last thing that our people want.
What can we do about it? The Government have a two-pronged policy. One aspect of the policy is silence. We must not say anything which is divisive or damaging to the Government. A fortnight ago, various members of the Cabinet and senior members of the Conservative party did have things to say about Europe. But now they have been told to be quiet, not to speak in front of the children and not to say things which could upset the stability of the Government. We will find that, through the policy of silence, we will not talk about it now. When the change


comes, we will be told as night follows day—it has happened in the past—that it is too late, and we should have discussed and debated the matter earlier. A referendum would help to solve that problem.
The other prong of the Government's policy is reassurance. We are told that the Government know about the arguments, but we are not to worry because they are winning the argument. Everything in Europe is coming our way, we are told. There are four big lies: "Darling, I promise I will love you in the morning."

Mr. Tony Banks: So that is what the hon. Gentleman used to say.

Mr. Marlow: It takes one to know one.
"I am from the Government—I am here to help." "Don't worry, the cheque is in the post." But the biggest lie of all is, "Don't worry, the European argument is coming our way." The people know this. There has been a debate in the country during the past few months, and they are increasingly concerned about what is happening to our country. They feel misguided, and that we are in a position which we do not want to be in.
What can we do about it? There are two ways of dealing with the issue. The Government can go forward to the IGC with a radical new policy direction with regard to Europe to retrieve power. About 40 or 50 years ago, this country ran—more or less satisfactorily—the affairs of one third of the world. Now we are not even allowed to govern ourselves. The Government could go to Europe and say that they know what the people of Britain want. We do not want to leave Europe. We like the single market and co-operating with other countries, but we do not want to be dominated by the Commission, or by the European Court or by the common agricultural policy.
When the Government set about such activity, they do it by and large on a diplomatic basis. They win a bit here, and give a bit there. They are all colleagues and Ministers together. They are friends who will co-operate instead of making the major changes needed to make our relationship with Europe acceptable to the British people. The diplomatic approach will not achieve enough. I believe that a referendum would give a clear statement from the British people that we have gone too far, and would encourage the Government to be much more adamant and determined and adopt a radical approach at the IGC.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am one of those people who is relaxed about the idea of a referendum. An advantage of it is that it would force politicians to come out and discuss the issues with the public. The hon. Gentleman has described what he believes members of the public are saying. I have no great evidence that they are thinking or saying a great deal about the matter. The whole debate about Europe seems to be confined to the politicians and the chattering classes. Would not a referendum extend the area of debate?

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman and I probably have different views of what public opinion might be, but I think he would agree that a referendum would make sure that there was a debate, as there has not been one yet. It would also give the public an opportunity to participate

in the debate, not just with their voices but with their votes. That would be wholly beneficial to the democratic process.
I had wished to mention various aspects which could in part be resolved by a referendum, but as time is moving on and some colleagues want to speak I shall restrict myself. Let us have a look at the European budget. I am told that in the near future, our net contribution, which is important—the gross contribution is also important, but I will restrict myself to the net contribution—of the United Kingdom to the European Union will be about £3,000 million a year. That is £60 per head; it is about £5 a week for every family of four in the country. That has happened. It has arisen. No one has been asked about it. No one has been consulted on it, but it is the situation with which were are confronted at the moment.
So Europe is awash with money. It is largely awash with our money. There is more German money, but after that it is awash with our money. The problem with European money is that there is no such thing as honest money in Europe. The whole of the £3,000 million that we put into Europe is one gigantic slush fund. As I said in an intervention earlier, the French said that they would not allow the European elections to go ahead unless and until we gave them an undertaking that we would build, at massive expense, a third European Parliament building in Strasbourg. That is bribery and corruption.
The Spaniards said that they would not let enlargement go ahead unless and until we agreed to give them more of our money. That is bribery and corruption. The Italians made various remarks about milk quotas. They had cheated on milk quotas. Unless a large proportion of their cheating was permitted to go ahead and unless the fine imposed on them for cheating was reduced, they would not allow Europe to proceed in the direction that everyone and even they wanted it to go. That is bribery and corruption.
There is a chap in British history called Robin Hood. Apparently, he used to take from the rich and give to the poor. The problem with the European budget is that it takes from the poor and gives to the mafia. There is no reason why we should participate in this. It is corrupt. By its corruption, the whole process of political debate and the whole process of public finance is infected and poisoned. While a lot of the corruption has been based in southern Europe, the danger is that if the European budget continues as it is, corruption will cross the channel and public standards in Britain which, while not perfect, are much higher than those in most of Europe, will be contaminated by that very level of corruption.
If we have a referendum, one of the issues that will be discussed will be what we are going to do about the European budget. I believe that our contribution should be massively slashed. It is unfair and unreasonable and the money is abused.
The second point that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) puts down as part of her referendum consideration is the single currency. There are economic arguments about a single currency and political arguments. The political arguments are infinitely more important, but let us look for a second at the economic arguments.
The Governor of the Bank of England made a very important speech recently. In that speech, he said that if we had a single currency and if the participants in it were not in stable equilibrium with each other, one of two


things would happen. Either there would have to be a massive transfer of funds from one part of the region to another, or we would have relatively high unemployment in one part of the entity and relatively low unemployment in the other. So there would be massive migration from one part to the other.
The impetus and the political will for a single currency and for carrying this great European adventure forward, which is much greater in other parts of Europe than it is here, will bring about a single currency in an inflexible situation. So we in Britain will be faced with two alternatives. Either, with a Conservative Government with responsible economic policies, we will have prosperous industry, we will be effective and we will have a balance of payments surplus. Therefore, we will be required to spend even more of our money in subventions to the less successful parts of Europe.
Alternatively, we will have a Labour Government, with the social chapter, Red Robbo and all that nonsense back again. We will be the poor man of Europe. In that case, all our people will flood out of the country to seek jobs elsewhere in the European Union. Neither of those scenarios is satisfactory. So it is most unlikely that Britain would wish to enter a single currency for economic reasons.
Far more important than the economic reasons are the political aspects of a single currency. If we have a single currency, we have a single bank, single interest rates and a single economy. We lose control over our national economy to a far greater extent than now. We have lost control over agricultural policy and trade policy. We are told what to do about ex-service women when they get pregnant. We have to pay them massive amounts of compensation.
Every little avenue of national life will be controlled by the European Union. We will cease to be a nation state. We will become a province with Brussels as our capital. That will be the end of Britain. Europe will be the nation. Britain will be some minor entity—a region of Europe. Scotland will be a different region of Europe. Perhaps they will take Cornwall off. They will try to put Ireland together. Europe will be all-powerful. Britain finally will have succumbed. That will be the end of it. Why?
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) may disagree with me, but I believe that the mass of people outside know that the economic arguments are important, but that the big argument on a single currency is the political argument. A single currency will be the end of the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister knows that. The Government know that.
We will probably have an election in April 1997. In June or July of 1998, we will have to decide whether we will go for a single currency in 1999. It will be impossible, during an election campaign in April 1997, for the Government not to be required to say whether they are in favour of the political union that will come with a single currency.
The Conservative party is bleeding at the moment. Yes, there is strife and conflict in the Conservative party. There is argument and debate. That conflict and debate will continue until the issue is made clear to the people. Never mind the economic arguments: a single currency means political union and a European state. Why cannot the Government say today or on Wednesday at the latest that that is something up with which they will not put? The people do not want it. They do not want to be part of a

European united state. They want to be part of their own country, their own state. That is where their identity is. Why cannot the Government understand it? Why cannot the Government be square and frank with the people? Why do we have to continue the delay and argument?
The overwhelming majority of the Conservative party in Parliament knows that a single currency is wrong. The overwhelming majority of the Conservative party in the country is against a single currency. The people are against it. In the name of reason, good sense and survival, right hon. Friend, Prime Minister, make yourself clear and do so now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay has done the House a great service by introducing this Bill for a referendum. There are three basic reasons why we need a referendum. I have to admit that I am against referendums in general. If the House used its powers, there would be an election. If the people did not like the way in which we had used those powers, they could return a different Government and those powers would be there for the new Government to reverse the decisions that people did not like that had been taken earlier by a previous Government. That is democracy.
If we transfer powers and move them to other institutions, that is different. We have an election. The people's will may be to change something. For example, the people are deeply concerned about the export of live animals. There is nothing they can do about it, because that power has been transferred. This House is powerless on that issue, as on so many others. Therefore, on Europe and the transfer of powers, there has to be an exception and we have to have a referendum.
In her Bill, my hon. Friend puts down two questions, two simple and straightforward alternatives. There are people who wish to have a united states of Europe. They are entitled to argue for it. May the best man win. They might win a referendum. I doubt it. They think that that is the inevitable tide of history. Others of us take a different view.
Yes, we are in favour of Europe. We are friendly with Europe. We want to trade with Europe. We want to co-operate with Europe in matters on which we should co-operate. But we are over-governed by Europe now. We have to repatriate sovereignty and bring more competence back to the United Kingdom.
Those are the two alternatives. Why cannot they he put before the people? Why cannot we put them before the people before the Prime Minister goes to the IGC?
As I said, all these matters are decided by diplomacy and diplomats do not like radical solutions—it is a bit of give and take here, there and everywhere else. To be at peace with Europe, which is what the Prime Minister wants I am sure, we have to have some radical changes. I do not see how the Government and the Prime Minister can achieve them, unless armed with the will of the people and the knowledge that they want to go for that alternative whereby we would regain our sovereignty and independence within a Europe with which we can be at peace.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I congratulate the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on bringing the Bill before the House. She is a neighbour of mine and,


while I disagree with her on most things, I acknowledge her political courage, which is considerable. That should be stated.
Those are all the nice and conciliatory things that I can say. I cannot bring myself to contemplate supporting the Bill, for the primary reasons that it is tendentious, ill-conceived and badly drafted. The Bill is designed for maximum spite against the existing arrangements from which, on balance, the British people are net beneficiaries.
The hon. Member for Billericay and her hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) produced the Bill for a referendum solely on Europe, about which they feel so strongly. I do not want to retread old ground, but the Liberals tabled a motion a week ago, which got me into considerable trouble. My line is consistent, however, and for that reason I hope to introduce my own referendum Bill, which will not relate exclusively to Europe. It will extend democracy in this country and provide for referendums whenever Parliament passes any constitutional measure.
I would probably incorporate treaties in such a Bill. One of the great deficiencies of our democracy is that treaties are ratified under the royal prerogative and never by Parliament, which is a mistake. I want us to follow the example of most other legislatures, especially the United States, where Governments or the Executive may approve treaties, but they must subsequently be approved by Parliament. That is what should happen with our relationships with Europe and any later treaties. They should be approved here.
If, in addition, a treaty fundamentally altered our constitutional status or, to a lesser or greater extent, a measure of sovereignty was to be surrendered, it should be put to the British people and decided by a referendum after the treaty had been endorsed by an Act of Parliament. That is the correct way round. Clearly, the people could then make a clear-cut and reasoned decision. That is what I want on Europe and other constitutional issues.
If and when devolution, fixed-term Parliaments, a democratic election for a reformed upper House and the reform of our electoral system are ever approved by Parliament—I hope that they will be—they should subsequently be endorsed by referendum. That would be a major extension of our democracy—one that should be welcome. That is not what lies behind the Bill, however.

Mr. Heald: As I understand it, one Labour party idea is that there should be a regional assembly for the east of England, which would no doubt mean my constituents being governed from Norwich.

Mr. Marlow: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Heald: There is nothing wrong with Norwich, but we in Hertfordshire do not want to be governed from there, thank you very much. Is the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) thinking of a national referendum or a referendum in the east of England, so that those of us in Hertfordshire who do not want to be run from Norwich can say what we want?

Mr. Mackinlay: If the hon. Gentleman will pay attention after asking a daft question, I shall tell him that, regrettably, he is wrong in his premise. There is no Labour

party policy for a regional assembly for eastern England. I believe in substantial devolution throughout the United Kingdom. If that measure came before the House and subsequently received Royal Assent, I would want it to be endorsed by a referendum.
I do not want to be like a long-playing record on that point, but I must repeat that, when we have constitutional change, and after the appropriate Act has received Royal Assent, it should then be put to the people in a referendum.

Mr. Streeter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mackinlay: For the last time.

Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is making an interesting point on referendums. Does he believe that, if a future Labour Government tried to devolve more powers to a Scottish Parliament, there should be a referendum? If so, who would decide—just the Scottish people, or the United Kingdom population? Would Scottish Members of Parliament be able to come to an English Parliament and have powers over English domain?

Mr. Mackinlay: I think that we are digressing, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It may be as well for me to point out again that we are discussing a referendum on the European Union. That is what the Bill is about, and what the debate must be about.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall sort out the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) afterwards on that matter.
The propositions that the hon. Member for Billericay suggests should be put to the British people are ill conceived. The Bill refers to pursuing
full integration with the European Union under a constitution which is federal in character",
but who decides what is "federal"? Surely, one of the things that we have discovered during past months and years is that one man's "federal" is not another's. It is an ill-defined word, full of misconstruction, and it leaves great potential for mischief and for misleading the people.
We should put to the British people the option of endorsing any decisions that flow from the IGC, following an Act of Parliament in this place. That is what I want. If I had been in this place earlier and been able to persuade the House that my thesis—which is being rubbished by implication by Conservative Members—that we should have a referendum on major constitutional issues was correct, we could then have had a referendum after the Single European Act and Maastricht, but the foolish and feckless electorate did not send me here in time. Now that I am here, I am saying that we should have referendums after Acts of Parliament have endorsed any treaty changes.

Mr. Streeter: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to call his constituents fools?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not aware of anything in the Standing Orders or in past practice on that subject. Nevertheless, I must repeat that the courtesies that certainly used to take place in my early days in the House


do not tend to be in evidence these days, which is not a good thing for the House. I hope that we can get back to those old ways. I am not saying that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has been discourteous, but the practice of insulting one another does no service to this House.

Mr. Mackinlay: I certainly have not insulted anyone. My constituents were very prudent to send me here; it was other electors in other constituencies who did not do so. That was the point that I was making. The good people of Thurrock were prudent to give me their trust, and I shall try to exercise that without further interruption.
The second option in the Bill is that we should
remain in the European Union, but only as a member of an association of states trading freely with one another".
That is complete nonsense. One cannot be part of the European Union, but opt out of everything else. Moreover, it would be retrograde. The vast majority of people would find it inconceivable that we should give up our present relationship with the European Union lock, stock and barrel.
A third option is the most likely to emerge after the forthcoming IGC. We may find that, broadly, our relationship with the European Union will not change. I sense that both the electorate in this country and the electorates of other countries in the European Union will need, for some time to come, time to digest the changes brought about by the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty. I suspect that the IGC will tidy up the edges of those matters without further substantially integrating European Union member states. If I am wrong, once subsequent legislation has been put before the British people, that matter could be put before the British people, but we cannot do that in advance.
Monetary union has been mentioned. I have an open mind on that and acknowledge that, if we enter a single currency, we shall inevitably surrender some sovereignty. I do not particularly like surrendering sovereignty, but we have done so in the past, and that must be balanced against possible disadvantages of not proceeding in that way. I cannot see how we can make that intelligent decision this side of the IGC without knowing the ground rules for controlling a single currency and whether all member states will participate in it.
At the back of my mind is the thought that it would be extremely difficult for us to maintain and promote our economic interests if all other members of the European Union signed up to a single currency. But, as an elector, I do not want to make that decision until I have seen the ground rules that emerge from the IGC. The whole issue may be fraught with such difficulties that there will be no monetary union or single currency after the IGC.
The current scaremongering is therefore inappropriate. It does not allow for intelligent and informed debate either on the concept of referendums as part of our democratic machinery or on our relationship with other members of the European Union.
After the IGC, the British people should be asked to ratify an Act of Parliament on the matter. The beauty of that would be that those who supported what emerged from the IGC would have to go out and sell it and there would be a proper and informed debate, rather than the one-sided debate currently coming from a minority, primarily from Conservative Members. Understandably, the Government and the Opposition Front Bench are

trying to kick the issue into touch. I have some sympathy with that, because we are some time away from the ICC and now is not the time to pursue the matter. Once we reach 1996 and have had the conclusions of the IGC, it will then be appropriate for Parliament and the people to consider the matter.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I have great pleasure in participating in the debate, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on introducing the Bill and thereby raising the issue. Although I cannot support the Bill, this is a timely and useful opportunity to run through the arguments for and against referendums, particularly a referendum on this issue.
For many years, I was firmly set against the notion of referendums, even on restoring the death penalty, which I happen to favour. All hon. Members will recognise, even if they do not condone or agree with it, that the overwhelming majority of the population would favour restoration of the death penalty, whereas a significant majority in the House is consistently against it. As a matter of principle, I do not believe that referendums have a place in our constitution except in exceptional circumstances. Even on an issue on which a referendum would support my position, like the death penalty, I would not argue for one.
I am against referendums for three common reasons, to which hon. Members have already referred. First, we are a representative parliamentary democracy. What are hon. Members doing in coming to this place—even the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who seemed to take issue with the electorates of several constituencies who did not have the good judgment to send him here earlier—I am sure that we all missed his contributions to debates until the last election—

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is president of the Thurrock Conservatives and I am vice-president, so we shall ensure that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) does not make those speeches for much longer.

Mr. Waterson: I am delighted to hear that Thurrock Conservatives have the benefit of such a wide range of experience and views on this issue at their disposal. Although I have a great personal affection for the hon. Member for Thurrock, I hope that he will not take it unkindly when I say that I hope that he will be doing something equally productive but different after the next election.

Mr. Tony Banks: He will be a Minister.

Mr. Waterson: The hon. Member for Thurrock knows that I wish him no ill will, and look forward to his rapid promotion to the Opposition Front Bench.
No hon. Member can convincingly argue that referendums do not, to an extent, undermine Parliament's sovereignty. That must be part of the trade-off if we are to have a referendum, which is why they should be only extraordinarily rare events.
The second reason why I do not believe in referendums is that it is so difficult to ask the right question. With all


due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay, I am not sure that she asks the right question, or that it will be clear what the right question will be until much further down the line, up to and including the IGC. This is a trite point, but I do not apologise for repeating it, because it is the fundamental issue in considering any referendum. One needs to ask a question that is sufficiently complex to deal with the issue but sufficiently simple to evince a straight yes or no answer from the electorate and be easily comprehensible.
I have talked about asking the right question; the next argument is about getting the wrong answer, or rather the answer to a different question. I have the honour and pleasure to represent Eastbourne—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] It does not get quite as big a cheer as Basildon, but I do what I can. One thing that we in Eastbourne know about is the phenomenon of the protest vote. By-elections are a perfect example of the protest vote, when the electorate tries to send the Government a message. Deciphering that message is not always straightforward, particularly when the electorate in Eastbourne had the good sense to return to the Conservative fold at the subsequent general election.
That argument operates in spades when applied to referendums. We need look no further than the French referendum to see how a referendum campaign can become hopelessly entangled with other current issues or with the temporary unpopularity of the Government of the day. The people who turned out to vote did not answer the question on the referendum paper, but answered a different question or set of questions. It would be wrong if I did not say that I still have some reservations about the wisdom of holding a referendum.
I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay to ask about the timing of a referendum and the attitude of Her Majesty's Government. It would be inherent in such a referendum campaign for Members of the House, of whatever party, to be free to go out and campaign for a yes or no result. There is nothing wrong with that, but to pose the question in the run-up to the IGC—by 31 December—even before the IGC has got started, would severely undermine the ability of Ministers and the Government to present a united and resolute face to our partners in the IGC negotiations. It might happen that Ministers campaigned for a different result, so it would be difficult for the Government to present a united front at the IGC negotiations.
After a great deal of thought, I have come round to the view that there is a role—albeit a rare one—for a referendum on this issue. If a proposal were made further to reduce significantly our sovereignty, it would be appropriate to have a referendum, with all its imperfections. In January 1975, when Lord Wilson was Prime Minister, he recognised the seriousness of proposing a referendum. A White Paper published then stated:
The referendum is to be held because of the unique nature of the issue, which has fundamental implications for the future of this country, for the political relationship between the United Kingdom and the other Member Governments of the Community, and for the constitutional position of Parliament.
There may have been other reasons why the then Mr. Wilson wanted a referendum at that time, most notably

the divisions within his party, which are just as serious, but rather less apparent, today than they were then. He set out clearly the sort of circumstances in which a referendum might be appropriate.
We cannot know for some time whether a referendum will be necessary or appropriate. As has already been said today, the Prime Minister has made his position clear, particularly in recent weeks. For example, during an interview with David Frost on 8 January, he said:
I do not believe anything is going to happen in that conference that would remotely justify a referendum, I do not think it is going to deal with constitutional matters … if anything that involves significant constitutional change were raised in the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference, we the British would not accept it, so the question of a referendum would not arise.

Mr. Streeter: Does my hon. Friend agree that, were we to have a referendum this year on what might come out of the IGC next year, that might imply to our European partners that we would be prepared to accept constitutional change, whereas my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that we would veto any significant constitutional change that came out of the IGC?

Mr. Waterson: As usual, my hon. Friend has made the point better than I could. Although I do not blame my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay and her sponsors, there is a danger that by calling a premature referendum—premature in terms of the IGC—one would encourage the notion among our European partners that our negotiating position was somehow weak.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that he would not expect such constitutional issues to come up at the IGC in 1996. Opinions about that vary, quite reasonably so, and some people describe the IGC of 1996 as a tidying-up operation. Others have far more sinister notions as to what might be proposed. Although work has already begun in the foothills of the summit by the sherpas, we have a long way to go until a proper agenda for the IGC is hammered out and agreed.

Mr. Heald: If a referendum was held and the option in clause 1(2)(a), which I believe reflects the Labour party's view, to pursue
full integration with the European Union under a constitution which is federal in character, with a single currency and a common sovereignty",
was put to the people, is there not a danger that in mid-term, with the Labour party enjoying a certain popularity at the moment, which we know will end by the time of the next general election, it would put its weight behind that option? We might get a result that embarrassed the Prime Minister as he fought for British interests in those negotiations.

Mr. Waterson: That is a danger, and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to it. Heaven alone knows how the Labour party might approach a referendum. We shall hear about that from the Opposition Front-Bench spokeswoman. It would not go into a referendum campaign united, in stark contrast with the Liberal Democrats. Although that party has had differences of emphasis about the appropriateness of a referendum and on some aspects of the European question, it is pretty well sold hook, line and sinker on the notion of a federal


super-state in Europe and on giving up the right of veto on some important matters of policy. It will not surprise hon. Members to learn that I shall examine the policy of that party later in my speech.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As the hon. Gentleman knows so much more about these things than we all do, could he tell us what the danger is? I keep on hearing Conservatives saying that they want to fight the federal state. What is so bad about such a state? Would it not be better than what we have got, because at least with a federal state some things belong to Britain, just as some things belong to France? I should have thought that a federal Europe was a huge advance on the current position, where effectively nothing belongs to us.

Mr. Waterson: That is a surprising intervention, and it may take me the rest of my speech to take in its full implications. I am sure that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has an application form on his person for the European Movement, he might want to pass it back to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).

Mr. Duncan: rose—

Mr. Waterson: I want to make some progress.
We do not know what will be on the IGC agenda. We have had some clear assurances from the Prime Minister, which I hope have reassured at least most of the sponsors of the Bill, that if any constitutional changes were proposed, which he doubts, they would be vetoed by Britain.
In the same Frost interview, the Prime Minister said:
If in some fashion I cannot fathom something emerges from that conference that I was not able to block, I do not believe that can be the case, but if that were to be the case then I certainly would keep open the option of a referendum".
We have the prospect of a triple lock—

Mr. Carttiss: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Waterson: No.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Why will the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) not answer my question?

Mr. Carttiss: As he did not answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), my hon. Friend probably could not answer mine.

Mr. Waterson: We have the safety of a triple lock, to coin a phrase. First, we must agree what is to be on the agenda. That is far from being cut and dried. Secondly, we have had assurances from the Prime Minister that he would use our veto—some Opposition Members would like to dispose of it—to ensure that anything that we found objectionable would not end up in the IGC agreement. Thirdly, if by some mischance anything got through those safety nets, we still have the possibility of holding a referendum. Those things that the Prime Minister has said are important, and we must bear them in mind as we discuss the issue today.
The issue of a single currency has arisen more than once today. It is a feature of the second Bill on the Order Paper and it is one of the issues surrounding this Bill. It

is now clearly accepted by everyone on the Conservative side of the House that a single currency would be a constitutional issue, every bit as much as a political one.

Mr. Budgen: I know that my hon. Friend speaks with the authority and encouragement of the Government, so perhaps he can explain to the House how the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts that point.

Mr. Waterson: No; I am not sure that I accept that piece of, if I may say so, characteristic snidery about my reasons for participating in the debate. [Interruption.] I really do think that hon. Members should take a leaf out of the book of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who spoke so eloquently about the right of all Members of the House to express their point of view. The continual barracking from other Members here is really not designed to ensure a proper debate on the issue, which is a serious one.
On the nub of my hon. Friend's question, although I would accept that at one time there appeared to be a certain amount of confusion about the position, I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has made his position absolutely clear. He does now accept that it is not simply an economic issue, but that there is a constitutional and legal dimension. That, of course, is the position of all Members on the Conservative side of the House.
I do not want to dwell too long on the single currency. I shall move on to the issue of further political union.
There needs to be gradual recognition of the fact that different members of the European Union have joined for different reasons, and that the one reason why this country did not join the European Community, now the European Union, was in some way to holster or enhance our parliamentary democracy. We have had centuries of parliamentary representation.
We joined principally, in my opinion—it has always been my opinion—for reasons of free trade and an open and single market. Other countries, legitimately—I make no complaint about it—have joined for different reasons, such as to bolster democracy, to ensure economic improvements and so on, and perhaps because one or two have less of a sense of nationhood, of tradition, than we have. That is fine if it works for them, but I return to my argument that the main reason why we joined was economic and to do with trade.
It is important that we do not debate the subject of a referendum in a vacuum. We need at the same time to lay out a much more positive agenda for the IGC, which is part and parcel of the Bill that we are debating. We need to ensure that several issues appear on that agenda.
First, it must include border controls, which has become more topical in recent weeks. Secondly, it must include the powers of the European Commission. Even Mr. Santer has said that the Commission should do less but that what it does it should do better. Thirdly, it must include the powers of the European Court. Many of us—the lawyers in the House, at least—find some of the decisions that it takes worrying.
Fourthly, it must include subsidiarity, and the continuation of that process. We heard something about subsidiarity earlier. Fifthly, it must include the reversal of the drive towards political integration, and that is


connected with the argument that I made earlier about the different reasons why countries may have joined in the first place.

Mr. Tony Banks: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his percipience, because a little while ago he said that he hoped that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) would receive promotion to the Labour Front Bench and, lo and behold, he has.

Mr. Waterson: I fear that it is more of an occupation than a promotion. "Squatting" might be the appropriate word.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on a more serious note? How would he, as a lawyer, seek to constrain the formidable powers of that supreme court, the European Court of Justice?

Mr. Waterson: I am willing to be corrected by other hon. Members, but my understanding is that that court's authority derives from the consent of the nations that are part of the European Union. There are concerns about that court having an overweening amount of power in some of the decisions that it makes. I mean no disrespect to the European Court, but some of its decisions and the reasons behind them are unfamiliar to those of us brought up in the common law tradition. There is a political dimension to some of its decisions with which we in this country are unfamiliar.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. Does he not agree that the powers of the court do not derive from an abstraction called popular consent, but from documents drafted by, among others, the British Governments? Those are the constituent rules being applied by the courts. Even in this country, with the common law with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar, our judges, in their use of judicial review—which has been greatly developed in the past decade—exercise a decision-making power which, although not set out in constitutions such as the European Court applies, is a proper exercise of their role. It is becoming much more familiar, even for common lawyers, to hear judges pronouncing on so-called political matters.

Mr. Waterson: To an extent, the hon. Gentleman is right. There has been a change—whether it would have happened anyway, independently of the European Union and the European Court, is a debate for another occasion. I think that it was Lord Denning who talked about European law as an incoming tide, washing up the rivers and tributaries in this country, and there was nothing that the judges could do to resist it. I think that there is something that we can do.
Uncharacteristically, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) misunderstood the point. I hope that I said that the court had been set up with the consent of the nations, not necessarily the peoples of those nations. It seems that documents that can be negotiated, drafted and agreed by nations and should in theory be open to redrafting and improvement.
Sixthly, the reform of the common agricultural policy is bound to happen as a result of further enlargement. There is no way that the CAP can carry on its present

economically suicidal course if we enlarge the Community further to the east. Bringing in massive agrarian economies will make the rickety structure collapse unless it is thoroughly reformed.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Waterson: No.
Part of the same issue is rooting out waste and corruption in the European Union.

Mr. Mackinlay: rose—

Mr. Waterson: I must make progress, because I know that many hon. Members want to speak, and I do not wish to be accused of taking too long.
Seventhly, the subject of further enlargement has to be coupled with an enhancement of the power of the larger states, in which I include ourselves.
Finally, I return to the practical question of running a referendum. In my intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Billericay, I referred to the problem of timing. The timing is crucial, and I think that the referendum which the hon. Lady proposes will be premature for the reasons that I have mentioned already.
There are other practical problems relating to how the referendum would be organised and to how the question would be framed. The House of Commons Library background briefing on the issue is particularly useful in that respect. It makes the good point that, if a referendum is to have any meaning, it must be
acceptable, in the sense of being 'democratic' and 'constitutional'".
Everyone must accept that it is a valid and legitimate way of reaching a decision. The briefing document states:
A referendum can be said to be acceptable if it is genuinely recognised by the winners and the losers alike as being decisive of the particular issue at stake, at least in the medium term".
That brings us naturally to the issue of what question or questions to put in the referendum. The briefing paper says that there must be
a balance between brevity, clarity and simplicity on the one hand, and full and accurate descriptions of the issue(s)".
I have already said—it bears repeating—that we do not know what the issues will he. My hon. Friend makes the massive assumption that the wording in clause 2(a) of her Bill represents the choice that will face us following the intergovernmental conference. The briefing document wisely makes the point that
a referendum should (a) allow individual choice to be reflected accurately—'micro fairness', and (b) produce a final result which translates … the aggregation of individual choices or 'macro fairness'".
There will be continuing debate about the sorts of questions that the proposed referendum should ask. The document makes a distinction between what it calls a "static" question—for example, to remain within the European Union or to unite the two parts of Ireland, or whatever it may be—and what it calls a "dynamic" or "process" question which reflects the stages of the process towards more integrated political union. There may be valid arguments for a multi-option referendum, a preference vote system or whatever.
The hon. Lady did not dwell in her speech—perhaps she may wish to reflect upon it later—upon whether a minimum voter turnout is essential for the success of the referendum. Should we specify a necessary voter majority. as occurred on a previous occasion involving


Scotland? I think that the figure of 40 per cent. was put forward on that occasion. We must address that practical issue. I am trying to be helpful and to improve the Bill. It is an important issue, and the debate will not go away.
I share the dismay that has been expressed today about the limited way in which we can tackle the question of fisheries, live animal exports or border controls in the Union. Like the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), I did not seek election to the House wanting to see it reduced to the position of a glorified county council. I do not want to see its substantial powers slip away, wittingly or unwittingly, to Europe.
I am sure that you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, despite all the flak that the Government have received from Opposition Members in the recent discussions about live animals, fisheries or whatever, the supreme irony is that the Opposition would hand over even more power and control to Europe. The Liberal Democrats would abolish the right of veto in almost every area of competence in the European Union, leaving us with qualified majority voting.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Waterson: No.
Right hon. and hon. Members in both Opposition parties should be pressed as to what they would do over the European question. Sooner or later the Opposition parties must reveal their policies. They cannot simply say, "Well, I wouldn't start from here."

Mr. Mackinlay: rose—

Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman is extremely persistent and I will give way to him in a moment.
The Opposition parties must come up with alternative policies. Opposition Members must come clean on where they stand on the extension of qualified majority voting, from which so many of our problems flow.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Government Members are dishing out the nonsense that somehow the Labour party would not be more robust in Europe than the Government. It would be extraordinarily easy to be more robust in Europe than the Government, because they are pathetic. Yesterday, I asked why our contributions to the common agricultural policy have increased by 56 per cent. since the last Labour Government was in office. The Labour party is calling for a major and fundamental reform of the CAP, and the Minister of Agriculture is pathetic in his attempts to pursue that matter in Brussels.

Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene in his intervention. If only his party were as robust as its present leader in 1983, when he said that Labour would negotiate a withdrawal from the EEC, which had drained the country's natural resources and destroyed jobs. There is no evidence that Labour would be any more rigorous than the Liberal Democrats.
I am sorry for speaking for longer than I had intended, but I did take many interventions. I will conclude by emphasising that, under this Government, the UK still has the veto—and we proved at Corfu that we are not afraid to use it when this country's interests demand its use.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) took many interventions, including two from his own side that completely holed him below the water line. I do not want to intrude into the enjoyable civil war that we are able to observe on the Government Benches. It has become the best political show in town, and I would certainly like my full ecu's worth.
There has been much talk in this debate and elsewhere about the single currency, but it is not the real issue for the Tory party. The real issue is in part addressed by the Bill—this country's future in the European Union. That matter is dividing today's Tory party like the corn laws did in the 19th century. It is fascinating to watch.
There should be debate, but in this day and age, such a debate within a party is seen as internecine strife. It is held that political parties must be monolithic in their views, but that would destroy parliamentary and any other form of representative democracy. I welcome the debate, but I welcome even more the fact that it is sorely dividing the Conservative party.
The other struggle in the Tory party is between left and right—between the monetarists, who see themselves as the custodians of the shrine of the blessed St. Margaret, and the supporters of the "One Nation" philosophy. The struggle is manifested as debates on the European Union and the single currency.
The Prime Minister is placed in an almost impossible position. He is continually looking over his shoulder at his own right wing—at his Euro-bastards, or however he describes them in unflattering terms. The Prime Minister is a total prisoner. He knows that, and so does any objective observer. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say what he really believes about Britain's future in the European Union. I would like to hear him in relaxed mode one day, saying precisely what he really believes as opposed to what he must say to keep his warring party together.
I am relaxed, in the context of the Bill, about the notion of a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union and a single currency. No politician should be frightened of public debate. I take a completely different position from the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), but am happy to debate with him throughout the country and to let the people decide. I claim no originality for that phrase, but it should guide us in the governance of this country. This is the sort of issue on which the people should decide. It should not be confined to debate among political parties or so-called opinion formers.
I do not believe that our country has a realistic future outside the European Union. Nor, if a single currency was presented as credible, would it be realistic for Britain not to adopt it. That possibility does not even exist. It may be all right to rule that out for 1996 or 1997, but when a single currency is a reality at the end of the century, it would be absurd for this country to remain outside it.
All economic interests would think it impossible, so we would be required to join a single currency to safeguard our economic position. The Prime Minister's so-called opt-out was nothing more than an economic and political


figleaf, with which he covered himself to keep his party together. Too much current debate on economic union is esoteric and confined to politicians.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: In speaking for a single currency, is the hon. Gentleman content with the mandates and statutes of the European central bank? Are not those unacceptable arrangements the real difficulty, the terms of which could themselves rule out our membership of a single currency?

Mr. Banks: The terms are not set in concrete. I can see many objections to an independent central bank having no popular or democratic accountability. I have never worried about political involvement in economic decision-making. I do not necessarily believe that bankers should decide exactly what should happen.
There are political consequences of economic decisions. We saw the way in which Helmut Kohl interfered, as it were, over the amalgamation of east and west Germany, in saying that the ostmark would have parity with the deutschmark. One could argue that was not a sensible economic decision, but it was a necessary political decision. There is no reason not to continue debating a central bank and its accountability to a European Parliament, or whatever other trans-European body takes its place.
All institutions, whether pan-European or national, should be accountable to elected representatives. The highest authority is that derived from the ballot box. Appointed business men or bankers do not have the authority that even we have as Members of Parliament.
Unfortunately, I cannot support the hon. Lady's Bill, much as I support much of the drive behind it. I apologise to my feisty opponent, the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). We go from television studio to television studio together, causing mayhem—often much to the discomfort of members of our respective Front Benches. However, I cannot support the hon. Lady's Bill, which is not well drawn.
I cannot, for example, support clauses 1 and 3, which would leave Her Majesty the Queen to decide the terms of a referendum. Such matters are for the Government of the day or for Parliament to decide. We might want a referendum one day on the future of the monarchy. Are we to allow Her Majesty the Queen to determine its terms? She might choose wording such as, "Do you want to keep the Crown and all its majesty, or do you want to hand the country over to a bunch of swivel-eyed Trots?" If that were the question that HM the Queen decided was to be put to a referendum, I would not stand much chance of having the republic that I should like.

Mr. Heald: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he has perhaps not fully appreciated the fact that an Order in Council would have to be made and laid before the House to deal with such matters. Therefore, it would not be the Queen alone who took the decision but the House of Commons.

Mr. Banks: Clause 1(3) states:
The questions need not be in the exact words preceding the subsection, so long as Her Majesty is satisfied that their wording reflects the true intent and spirit of the Act

That is putting too much discretion in the hands of an unelected and unaccountable individual. What on earth is such a provision doing in the Bill, as it takes power from the people and hands it to someone who has inherited her position rather than earned it through the ballot box?

Mr. Donald Anderson: And someone who is of German origin.

Mr. Banks: And someone of German origin, as has just been pointed out.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman might like to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Banks: I am sorry if it causes offence. I thought that it was a factual statement; I did not mean it to be disparaging. I was merely stating the position.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need to explain what he was saying. In my judgment, the remark was made in a disparaging manner, and I should be grateful if he would withdraw it.

Mr. Banks: I was led into it, but of course I withdraw it at your request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and move on rapidly to safer ground.
We are moving to closer economic and political union in Europe. That is inevitable, and I welcome it unreservedly. That does not mean that I want us to hand over, lie down, roll over and wait for people to walk all over us, but closer economic and political union is, inevitable and should be welcomed.
My view is shared by some colleagues, but is not necessarily my party's official view. Personally I look forward to a united federal Europe with a European Government elected through a European Parliament. It is a perfectly reasonable position that I am prepared to defend, especially in the context of a referendum, because we are debating significant constitutional matters.
With reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), there is a big difference between a referendum on capital punishment, which is a matter of conscience, and a referendum on an issue of prime constitutional significance. No one can force me to vote to restore capital punishment, because it is a matter of conscience, but someone could certainly lead me down the path of constitutional change, because I represent the interests of the majority of the people.

Mr. Waterson: That is precisely the point that I was trying to make. I feel no less passionately than the hon. Gentleman about capital punishment, although we hold different views. Even though I know that my argument would win in a referendum, I would still not wish to hold one, because it would not be appropriate in that context.

Mr. Banks: I join hands with the hon. Gentleman. When one has talked about supporting a referendum on Europe, one often gets letters asking why one does not support a referendum on capital punishment. It is worth putting the record straight, because there is some confusion among a certain element of the electorate.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The critical distinction is not that which the hon. Gentleman is seeking to make, but has to do with the irrevocability of the issue at hand. Any Parliament may reintroduce or do away with capital punishment, but the issues that we are debating are for


ever—that is the intention. When something so fundamental is at stake, the people must be able to express their view.

Mr. Banks: That may be the case. Also, constitutional matters affect all of us individually and collectively. Capital punishment does not affect all of us as directly as constitutional change, whether it is irrevocable or not—unless one happens to be the person murdered, but that is another issue.
I shall conclude my remarks as many other hon. Members wish to speak. I want a broader and deeper European Union. I see no reason why we should say that history stops at the nation state. What is it about the nation state that is so holy that we cannot move on? Nation states are merely the result of wars or principalities coming together through unions and treaties, usually in the aftermath of war.
The big difference is that what is happening now in Europe is not taking place in the aftermath of war; this is not something being imposed on the people. It is not a question of the strong imposing something on the weak. Conservative Members may believe that it is an imposition, but it is certainly not an imposition on the weak by the strong in the aftermath of war. People are not being forced to do this; they are doing it because they believe in it. There may be faults in how it is done, but it cannot be compared with how Europe has been redesigned and reshaped in the past.
This is our great opportunity: a united states of Europe certainly does not frighten me. Indeed, it excites me. I look forward to its advent, and I welcome any step that takes us closer to a united, federal Europe.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: It is a privilege to be allowed to take part in the debate after the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), because he dramatically illustrates so much of modern Labour thinking. The exterior is all chirpiness, vigour and originality, but the substance of the argument is all political correctness.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West believes in a federal Europe—as quickly as possible—and in animal rights. He is as much a child of political correctness in this decade as was Lord Jenkins in the 1950s and 1960s. There is no difference in the substance of what the two of them had and have to say. Lord Jenkins advanced his ideas with monumental gravitas; the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, in this modern, classless, politically correct age, advances his ideas with the cheeky chirpiness of a London cockney. Both of them believe in political correctness—a fact that is useful to my argument.
I shall be brief, because I cannot be otherwise. I realised the sense of isolation and alienation that people in my position feel when I saw my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson)—I do not mean to offend him—deriving support and help from his central office notes. Sad to say, I am not allowed central office notes, although I am allowed the Library notes. My hon. Friend thus has the advantage of me.
Even without the assistance of central office notes, I can say that I have always had an objection to referendums. I regard a referendum as a last resort which, when it is resorted to, brings with it considerable

disadvantages. It is true that a referendum is inconsistent with parliamentary sovereignty. It is also true of a referendum that the public at large are likely to be uncertain as to whether its result will be mandatory or merely consultative. A referendum is certainly capable of creating conflicts between Parliament and people, and between a Member of Parliament and his constituency.
A referendum, in short, is a highly divisive mechanism to be resorted to only in the very last moments of a very difficult situation.
I seriously believe in united parties. To be sure, there is a need for vigorous debate within a party, but not to divide it. I cannot think of a better way of making the Tory party more seriously divided over Europe than to hold a referendum, with two camps fighting on different sides and then attempting to form a Government thereafter.
It seems to me that the principal proponents of the two views on Europe in the Cabinet are both right in wanting to avoid a referendum. We know from a recent speech that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not want a referendum; and we know from the way in which the press is briefed that the Secretary of State for Employment does not want one either. They are right. If it possibly can be avoided, it should be avoided.
We have only to think of the position of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer if we had a referendum now on the single currency. What would happen if he were passionately advocating in the referendum campaign that we should have a single currency as soon as possible and that we should be a member of it, only to find that the admittedly consultative referendum took a different view, as it were, and he found himself as Chancellor, without the authority of public support, moving forward to a single currency and continuing the process of preparing for it? Would he have to resign?
The ways in which those processes would work are difficult to ascertain. It is so much better if a decision can be reached by discussions within the parties, by a process of assessing public opinion and compromising, as public men so often have to do, to decide not what is desirable in their private and personal opinion, but what is politically possible.
My tentative proposal for a referendum on the single currency is based on the proposition that if we cannot have a proper divide between the two great parties, in the last resort a referendum may be a necessary but extremely undesirable way of resolving the public's demand for some say on the issue. Here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne that the subject will not go away. In particular, the issue whether we should go into a single currency will not go away.
There are many in my constituency who argue that not many people discuss with them on the doorstep the pros and cons of a single currency. They say, "It is a Westminster argument, and is of no interest to people in Wolverhampton." The people in Wolverhampton, Warrington or wherever are extremely interested in the results of good or bad government. We are interested in the results of good or bad government, but we are interested also in the systems and theories of government. It is those systems and theories that produce the results. When a dreadful mistake has been made, it is our duty to examine whether we can improve the system of government to prevent a repetition of the mistake.
We are right to say, for instance, after the experiment of following the deutschmark, under the Chancellorship of Lord Lawson, as he now is, or after the experiment of being in the exchange rate mechanism for two years, between 1990 and 1992, that we have already seen enough of the single currency in its early stages to know that it raises considerable economic and constitutional problems. We are right to say also that the matter should be discussed, even at the price of some unpleasantness and disagreement within the Tory party. It will be so much better if the issue can be decided not by a perilous referendum but by a clear divide between the two parties.
I thank the hon. Member for Newham, North-West for his apparently unconventional comments but expressions of a highly conventional view. The Labour party is becoming the party of politically correct federalism.
I am not accusing the Labour party of believing in much, except in the desire for office and in opportunism. I thought that the Labour party political broadcast that went out just before the 6 o'clock news yesterday was remarkable. It contained a most reassuring message to middle England, and particularly to middle-class people caught in negative equity. It was explained that the Labour party would suddenly be able to wash away all their problems.
There was not a word about how the Labour party had supported Mr. Lawson—as he then was—in his disastrous attempt to fix the pound to the deutschmark, which led to interest rates becoming too low, a massive increase in the money supply and the housing boom, which was the first step towards negative equity. There was not a word about how the politically correct Labour party had not raised a single word of criticism about our entry to, and continued membership of, the ERM. Indeed, it wanted to go further.
Yet the Labour party was able to say that it would be able to put right—in some miraculous and unspecified way—the problems of those with negative equity. It is becoming the party of federalism and of the new political correctness, and all those who believe in that sort of thing will have a real choice.
On the other hand, it is becoming plain that the Tory party—in all its manifestations—has learnt from the disaster of shadowing the deutschmark and from the disaster of the ERM. It has learnt from the unexpected consequences of the disgraceful guillotine of the Single European Act by Lady Thatcher and my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), which was smashed through this House so that the nation did not understand the full consequences. The nation was appalled at the aggressive and authoritarian way in which the Maastricht treaty was imposed upon this House and the nation.
Every time we see a new manifestation of our loss of sovereignty, the Tory party moves back a step and says, "Not me, guy." As we become more assertive in the national interest, so we shall find that no member of the Tory party ever supported the Single European Act or the Maastricht treaty. [Interruption.] Except for my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). The great body of the Tory party will never have supported any of those measures in a couple of years.
There is cause, I am pleased to say, for rejoicing. We shall see an increasing divide between the two great parties, particularly on the single currency. I took

particular pleasure and encouragement from the way in which the Prime Minister put his argument on 8 January on the Frost programme.

Mr. Mackinlay: The Prime Minister voted for the Single European Act and for the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Budgen: Indeed he did.
Although I am sadly not a member of the Tory party at present, when I applied to 10 Downing street for a transcript of the Prime Minister's interview with Sir David Frost, the people there were good enough to send me a copy. I dare say that those at present in the party may find it even easier to get a transcript.
I hope that hon. Members will read that interview. On page 5 of the transcript, the Prime Minister deals with his arguments against entering a single currency in 1996 and 1997. First he says that we would have to be in the exchange rate mechanism for two years. I am sure that on Wednesday he will explain the disadvantages of being in the ERM. Of course, that argument will apply long after 1997.
The Prime Minister's second argument was that the Bank of England would need to be independent. Again, he will have to explain the objections to the Bank of England being independent. Even more, I am sure that on Wednesday he will explain the disadvantages of monetary policy being managed not merely by an independent Bank of England but by an independent European bank.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. He said that one would have to be in the exchange rate mechanism for two years before one joined a single currency. The Government have said that they will not join until 1996–97, but they have not ruled out 1999. Does that mean that, if we join the single currency in 1999, we shall have to join the ERM by 1 January 1997? If the election does not take place until April 1997, does not that mean that the die will be cast before the election? If the die will be cast before the election, why not make the decision now?

Mr. Budgen: That is one of the points that will be made clear on Wednesday by the Prime Minister. We are glad that he is exercising political leadership and authority to explain further his important remarks on the Frost programme. I agree with my hon. Friend. The argument about being in the ERM for two years applies not only to 1996 and 1997 but, as far as I can see, into the foreseeable future. The Prime Minister's argument about the undesirability of an independent Bank of England also applies not only for 1996 and 1997 but for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Gentleman appears eagerly to await the time when the Prime Minister and the rest of the Conservative party will join his party, but before he takes too much comfort from what the Prime Minister said on "The Frost Programme", will he at least recognise that what the Prime Minister says depends on when and to whom he is speaking? Will he also consider that the Chancellor of the Exchequer very recently said that the Prime Minister agreed with him? Who is telling the truth?

Mr. Budgen: The Prime Minister is primus inter pares. I have no doubt that on Wednesday he will exercise the full authority of his office and give a definitive statement of his attitude to a single currency.
Whatever snide remarks—I use the word carefully—are made about the Prime Minister, the statement on 8 January was made for public consumption. Whatever may be said by unkind and untruthful people who wish to imply that one impression is given to one audience and another impression is given to another, the Prime Minister's remarks are on the record.
I have the record. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will wish to expand those arguments in a more formal way. An appearance on a programme such as "The Frost Programme" is necessarily conversational in style. He does not fully expand all the arguments.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Budgen: May I conclude? I shall then give way.
The third argument that was given on the Frost programme was the need for proper convergence. I have no doubt that on Wednesday the Prime Minister will expand on that. There can be temporary convergence, but there is not only the problem of creating temporary convergence, but the problem that once an economy has become converged with another, it does not necessarily remain converged. It can diverge. How does one accommodate those forces of divergence within a single currency?
We look forward with tremendous excitement and anticipation to what will be, I am sure, an extremely important and authoritative speech on Wednesday. We know that, when we have heard the Prime Minister expand those three arguments, we shall be clear in our minds that they do not last only for 1996 and 1997, but are arguments of principle against the single currency for all time. When that happens, the Tory party—

Mr. Richard Shepherd: My hon. Friend said that he was going to give way.

Mr. Budgen: Yes, I will.

Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful, and I appreciate that my hon. Friend invests a great deal of authority in the Prime Minister's remarks on "The Frost Programme", but our right hon. Friend's caution on the matter goes back a long way. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want to forget the important speech to the Confederation of British Industry in north Wales in 1990, in which he referred to a single currency as a "leap in the dark".

Mr. Budgen: I do not want to widen the gap between my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne and myself, and lead to a further period of sadness, isolation and deprivation, but none the less I am sure that I shall be forgiven for saying that vague terms such as a "leap in the dark" are easily used. Although the arguments in the transcript of "The Frost Programme" are in shorthand and in conversational form, they are very important. We know that we can trust the Prime Minister to explain them with clarity and distinction.
We are grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West for explaining the position of his party—a party of chirpily described, but fundamentally conventional, federalism and political correctness—but we are emerging as a party that does not need a referendum and a party that can be united in honourable patriotism and an earnest desire to enhance the role of the nation state.

Ms Joyce Quin: I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate, but I do not know whether what I have to say accords with the definition of political correctness enunciated by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen).
I congratulate the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on winning a high place in the ballot and being able to introduce her Bill. I also congratulate her on presenting her case with her usual verve and panache. I am sure that she will not be surprised to hear me say, however, that I do not support her Bill and take issue with her on many of the aspects of the case that she put forward today.
The hon. Member for Billericay said that what has been happening in the past few years in the European Union amounted to a constitutional revolution, but she and her hon. Friends are also trying to enact considerable constitutional changes in the way in which we do political business in this country, by advocating a series of referendums. If we accepted the need for all those referendums, we would be moving toward a referendum-type democracy—something that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) would welcome, but that we need to consider in the abstract and on its own merits, rather than merely adopting the hon. Lady's Bill or the other that is proposed today.

Mr. Duncan: The hon. Lady says that she objects to referendums because they introduce a great measure of constitutional change. How does she reconcile that with the Labour party's policy of introducing dramatic constitutional change within the United Kingdom by devolution? To be consistent, should she not favour both or neither?

Ms Quin: This morning we have heard demands for a series of referendums on European issues. That is the subject of this debate. If the hon. Gentleman asks whether I favour constitutional change within the United Kingdom, I certainly do and I am a longstanding supporter of a variety of constitutional changes, including a large measure of decentralisation.
This Bill and the subsequent Referendum (Single Currency) Bill to be introduced by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, and other motions considered by the House in recent days, concern a series of referendums on various aspects of the European dimension.

Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Lady think that it is right, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) conceded to me earlier, that, if Hertfordshire is to he governed from Norwich, we should have a referendum on that?

Ms Quin: I do not argue against the idea of people in different parts of the United Kingdom, who may be affected by constitutional change which a Labour Government would want to introduce, voting on that issue. However, if we are to move towards a system in which we increasingly use referendums, that must be considered on its merits rather than, as Conservative Members are doing, by launching ourselves into a series of referendums specifically on Europe. We are not against


referendums per se, but issues that constitute a change in the way that we operate should be considered on their merits.

Dr. Godman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the creation of a Northern Ireland Assembly would be the beginning of restructuring the multinational state of the United Kingdom?

Ms Quin: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which has been made by many people in the past two or three days. What is happening in Northern Ireland has interesting implications for developments within the United Kingdom. In terms of giving the various parts of the United Kingdom a greater say over their political and economic development, it sets an interesting precedent. It involves not just the national dimensions of Scotland and Wales but also, hopefully, the regional dimensions within England. I agree with my hon. Friend on that matter.
On the European dimension and the intergovernmental conferences that will begin next year, the Opposition's position is that, if substantial changes result from the 1996 IGC, including moves towards a single currency, the consent of the people will be important for those developments to take place. The people may express their views either via a referendum, which is a likely possibility, or via a general election. Much would depend on the timing of the next general election and how it fits in with developments taking place within the IGCs.
Some people say that the IGCs will begin towards the beginning of next year; others think that they will not get under way until much later; some think that they may be swiftly concluded with fairly minor changes, in which case it may not be deemed necessary to hold a referendum; others think that the conferences will be protracted, last for 18 months or so, and lead to considerable constitutional changes. All those uncertainties make it extremely difficult at this time to say definitely whether a referendum on Europe should be held.

Mr. Maclennan: I am glad to hear that the hon. Lady speaks for the Labour party in recognising that the British people should have an opportunity to express their view clearly about the outcome of the IGCs if they affect significant constitutional change. How can she argue that a general election would give British people that effective right when she knows that the Conservative party is divided and that it is impossible to see how those divisions could be healed within the time scale of the discussions? The last time we discussed European matters during the debates on Maastricht, it was clear that the Labour party was also divided. What is the argument of principle against a referendum on the outcome of the IGCs?

Ms Quin: In the debate initiated by the Liberal Democrats a week ago I was asked that question by one of my right hon. Friends. As I said then, supposing that, as a result of the IGCs, the only important change was that the United Kingdom decided to sign the social chapter and that that had been part of the discussions in the previous general election—where there was a clear difference between the two major parties—I do not think that people would argue that there needed to be a referendum on that particular issue even though it changed our relationship with the European Union.
I must respectfully say to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that I am aware that not everyone in his party is entirely enthusiastic about referendums. Indeed, all the members of his party were not in the House to support the vote for a referendum that took place about 10 days ago. It is clear that differences of opinion exist even in the hon. Gentleman's party. We must accept that. In return, I accept that, if people feel strongly that, because of the forces within political parties, their voice has been denied, that strengthens the case for a referendum. In the example I gave, however, I do not think that a referendum would be essential.
We support the idea that people should have the chance to express their view. In the light of some of the comments made this morning, I am bound to say that I do not think that a referendum is necessarily an easy or straightforward option. We must bear in mind that there are pitfalls in the referendum process.
A number of hon. Members have spoken, quite rightly, about the imprecise form of questions referred to in the Bill. According to the Bill, those questions would be framed
to invite an opinion as to whether the United Kingdom should—
pursue full integration with the European Union under a constitution which is federal in character".
There has, understandably, been a lot of discussion this morning about the nature of the word "federal". Many Conservatives seem to think that it means something that is highly centralised, yet in Europe it is often understood to mean something decentralised, as in the Federal Republic of Germany, which represents a decentralised system. It is ironic that we helped to set it up after the second world war. It has proved to be an enlightened political system. There is plenty of scope for dispute about the meaning of that word.
Clause 1(2)(a) continues by referring to
a single currency and a common sovereignty".
There is also a great deal of discussion about that. The second option is that the United Kingdom should
remain in the European Community, but only as a member of an association of states trading freely with one another, with substantial repatriation of sovereignty.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the odd thing about the questions is that the real motive of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)—to get out of Europe—is not posed as one of them? Does she also agree that the other question about a loose association of states may not be on offer?

Ms Quin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is a hidden agenda to the Bill, which dares not find expression openly in the House. None the less, we know that among those who are described as Euro-sceptics there are some who want us to withdraw Britain from the European Union altogether, whereas others in that peculiar alliance simply want a "substantial repatriation of sovereignty"—whatever that is and how ever far it goes—which the hon. Member for Billericay has proposed in her Bill.
If paragraphs 1(2)(a) and 1(2)(b) of the Bill were not bad enough, we then have the killer subsection, 1(3), which says:
The questions need not be in the exact words of the preceding subsection, so long as Her Majesty is satisfied that their wording reflects the true intent and spirit of this Act.


If the hon. Member for Billericay is fortunate enough for her Bill to proceed this morning and to be considered in Committee, I almost wonder whether the Committee may be continuing its consideration when the intergovernmental conferences have come to an end, because there is so much scope for debate on all the issues that are raised by the Bill.
Some hon. Members have referred to the difficulties that took place in referendums in other countries during the passage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, and I believe that some hon. Members lament the fact that we did not hold a referendum on the Maastricht treaty.
There was an argument to be made for holding a referendum on the Maastricht treaty, because the changes in it were considerable, but I think that there would have been a practical difficulty in finding the appropriate question to ask the British people in respect of that treaty.

Mr. Carttiss: Why should this country, which has had a Parliament for 700 years and is supposed to have brought democracy, culture and everything throughout the world during our days of empire, have more difficulty in framing a question about the Maastricht treaty than the French found in framing their question in the referendum that President Mitterrand held, which he was not obliged to hold, and the result of which he was very surprised about?
How come that the Danes, whose language is more complicated than ours anyway, can organise a referendum and put a form of words that people can vote on and then, three or four months later, having not obtained a single significant change in what they voted on before, can come up with another form of words that makes sense to the Danish people? The same of course applies, and I have great admiration for them.
If a bunch of Irishmen can get together and produce a form of words—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Order. Order. Is the hon. Gentleman deaf?

Mr. Carttiss: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not the sort of remark or the due deference that is due to the Chair, if I may respectfully say so to the hon. Member. [Interruption.] Well, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to be especially difficult with the Chair, the hon. Gentleman knows what he may do.

Mr. Carttiss: What is wrong with the word "bunch"?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not referring to "bunch". The hon. Gentleman knows the tradition of the House that an intervention should he short and succinct. To my counting, the hon. Gentleman asked seven questions, and by then my patience was beginning to get exhausted. The hon. Gentleman is being unfair to other hon. Members.

Ms Quin: In spite of his lengthy intervention, the hon. Gentleman missed a fairly obvious argument that I was about to reach in my speech, which was that the version of the Maastricht treaty that was on offer in Denmark and in France was somewhat different from the version that was on offer in this country because of the opt-outs that had been negotiated by the Prime Minister. The consequence of those opt-outs would have been to complicate the question in a referendum.
It would not have been impossible to solve the problem, but people in this country would have needed to be presented with the choice of Maastricht with both opt-outs or Maastricht with one opt-out or Maastricht with neither opt-out. Those choices would have had to be given to the British people and I think that the opt-out position that was foolishly negotiated by the Prime Minister none the less complicated the position quite significantly.

Mr. Duncan: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Quin: I shall not give way. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and I am anxious to make some progress, because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
In France, when the referendum took place, many issues became involved in the referendum campaign that were not strictly concerned with the Maastricht treaty. A great deal of debate was devoted to agriculture and the position of French farmers, although agricultural policy was not part of the Maastricht treaty. Although I do not object to it—it seems a usual part of politics—the referendum also tended to become very entangled with the domestic French political scene at that time. That happens in referendums. Many factors are at stake when referendums are held. The issue is not quite as straightforward as some Conservative Members have stated this morning.
If referendums solve problems—sometimes they do—they only solve them for a while, and are usually followed by other referendums on the same subject. Some 20 years ago we had a referendum on European Union membership. It has not caused the argument on European Union membership to disappear—indeed, it should not. Referendums are just one stage in the political process. But it is unrealistic for people start to think that referendums are a way of solving problems of all time.
The hon. Member for Billericay mentioned the great public support that she and her colleagues had received for their case. It seems that her views and those of some of her colleagues have resonance among Conservative party supporters. It is perhaps as a result that we have the spectacle of Conservative Euro-rebels delighting in their disgrace and flaunting their Whipless condition, rather than being sad and ashamed of what has happened, as we might have thought.
The hon. Lady and her colleagues overstate the public—as opposed to the narrow Conservative—support on the issues. When the hon. Lady and many people were calling for a referendum on Maastricht, my postbag was not full of letters asking for such a referendum. It was full of letters from people worried about issues such as the Child Support Agency, or the problems of getting a job or living on benefit. Those issues exercise the minds of the British people much more than some of the arguments on Europe advanced by Conservative Members.

Mr. Piers Merchant: Will the hon. Lady accept my assurance that my constituents sent me many letters, either calling for a referendum on Maastricht or giving similar views—far more than on the Child Support Agency?

Ms Quin: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman's experience is so different from mine, but I accept what he says about his postbag. I certainly do not want to challenge him on its contents.
Most people here are more concerned about other issues. There is a feeling among many people—a feeling that I share—that the Government have let down British interests in Europe, not for the reason given by the hon. Lady, but because the Government have isolated and weakened us in Europe. They seem to be more concerned to give us lower social and environmental standards than anyone else. There is a strong feeling, which the Opposition share and hope to highlight next week, that the Government have weakened us through their own internal divisions on the issues.
In support of the Bill, the hon. Lady also spoke of her feelings of national identity. Many people, like me, are proud of, and attached to, their identity. But people on both sides of the European argument can be equally proud of their identity. Many of us feel that a positive role in the European Union is very much in our national interest. We have different levels of loyalty and identity. I feel strongly regionalist; I am a Geordie and would like to see that identity promoted in future, just as my hon. Friends from other parts of the United Kingdom feel equally strongly about their national or regional identities.
The hon. Lady mentioned, and her Bill refers to, the idea that Europe should be a free trade area—
an association of states trading freely".
There seems to be a feeling among Conservatives that that is what we opted for in the 1975 referendum. If the hon. Lady thinks back to that time, she will realise that what was being discussed was the contrast between the European free trade area and the deeper form of co-operation involved in the treaty of Rome.
That is why it is absurd for the Conservatives to think that we can somehow have a free trading area which ignores the social dimension, which has been an important part of the European process from the beginning. It is unrealistic for the hon. Member for Billericay and her hon. Friends on the Front Bench to claim in the 1990s that the European social dimension—which some of us are very keen on—is an add-on or an extra. In fact, it has been in all European treaties since 1951.

Mrs. Gorman: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is perfectly possible to have an open trading arrangement, such as the North American free trade agreement, that does not include all of the regulatory parts of the European relationship which are so detrimental to our business development?

Ms Quin: I was sympathetic to the hon. Lady's comments about regulation. We do not want over-regulation or unnecessary regulation. There was an interesting exchange later in the debate between the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) which highlighted the fact that sometimes regulation is about promoting trade, which presumably the hon. Lady welcomes.
Reference was made to the infamous attempt to introduce a directive on lawn mower noise. When I first heard about that I thought that the European Commission was off its rocker in advancing such a proposal. However, the hon. Member for Harrow, East was quite correct when he said that the European Commission brought forward that proposal to allow British producers to export lawn

mowers to Germany. They had been prevented from doing that previously because of the way in which the German Government had written rules about noise.
We must examine each case properly. Sometimes regulations may be about promoting free trade—the very thing that the hon. Lady says that she wants to see. Regulation in the name of consumer protection or health and safety standards at work is very important to the interests of the people who live within the single European market. I think that we must take those points on board.
I have given reasons why the Labour party will not support the hon. Lady's Bill. However, once again the sharpest divisions have been on the Government side, and no doubt those divisions will be highlighted again in the debate on Wednesday. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) said that Conservative Members seem to be yearning for opposition. I, too, am yearning for them to be in opposition. Their division on the European issue and on many other matters means that that day cannot come a moment too soon for the people of this country.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): The Referendum Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) seeks to give the people of Britain a choice in a referendum between a federalist European super-state and Britain's effective disengagement and withdrawal from Europe. That is an absurd choice. It reduces to the ridiculous the debate on our future role in Europe.
The hon. Lady's subtext is clear: by suggesting that there is a prospect of some federalist European super-state into which we will unwillingly but inevitably become absorbed, she seeks to persuade people that the other option is preferable and that they should be given the opportunity to express that choice in a referendum. That is fairly primitive politics.
What do the leaders of Europe say about a federalist Europe or a European super-state? They quite rightly rubbish the idea because they know that it is not in prospect, it is not an option and it will not happen. Chancellor Kohl said:
We do not want a European 'super state' … we will remain Germans, Britons, Italians or Frenchmen.
Edouard Balladur said:
There are nothing but disadvantages in reopening the federalist debate. It's an anachronism: an enlarged Europe comprising more states could not be federal.
Alain Juppé said:
Europe will never be a super state, federal or otherwise.
The idea that there is a conspiracy of conniving continentals seeking to rob us of our birthright is a bogey. Equally bogus is the suggestion that Britain could turn her hack on Europe and abandon it, disengage from her history and become divorced from her geography. I want my children to be able to continue to write history, not just read it. I know that they can do that only if Britain remains at the heart of Europe.
If we are involved in and influencing Europe, with the courage to say yes when we believe that is in our best interests and those of Europe, and the self-confidence to say no and to stick to it when we do not, we can have every confidence in our own abilities and strengths.
Britain brings considerable assets to Europe. Ours is the world's sixth largest economy. London is the financial capital of the world. Our trading links and connections around the globe are considerable. Britain is one of the few countries in Europe still to have a global reach with her foreign policies. The United Kingdom alone in Europe is a member simultaneously of the UN Security Council, the economic summit and the Commonwealth—which comprises one third of the world's nations.
Our contribution to Europe's defence is second to none among European Union member states. We have made a more significant contribution to NATO, and hence to the security of all Europe, than any other European nation. No one can question our right to make clear our views on the future of Europe or doubt our ability to influence it. Many key developments of the past few years were advanced in Europe by us—the single market, enlargement, budgetary discipline, common agricultural policy reform, a greater drive on deregulation and trade liberalisation, the whole thrust for subsidiarity.
Our opposition to the social chapter is driven by a positive determination to see Europe improve its competitiveness. With more than 18 million unemployed, that is essential. That is why it is imperative to keep down social costs. If we do not, we shall lose competitiveness, prosperity and jobs. We can, and do, influence and help mould Europe's present. We can, and will, help to determine its future.

Mr. Marlow: It would be helpful if my hon. Friend could give several examples of subsidiarity in effect and of measures that have been repatriated to sovereign national Governments, so that they, rather than the European Community, have competence.

Mr. Baldry: There are frequent and many examples of decisions taken in this country at ministerial and local level that hitherto may have been taken in Brussels. We and all good democrats want to ensure that decisions are taken at the level at which they are best applicable.
The hon. Member for Billericay offers a referendum—always a seductive proposition. We are democrats, and democracy is about choice—and people should be given choices. Referendums are about making choices, so it is argued that those who refuse referendums are denying the public the opportunity to make a choice and that, therefore, they cannot properly be democrats. That is all heady stuff. However, we and the people of this country know that offering a choice between two equally far-fetched propositions does not enhance democracy.
Of course there are times when it is right to hold a referendum, when real and substantive issues should properly be put to the people. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that he has not ruled out a referendum, and that there may be circumstances in future when one might be appropriate. If there are, we will hold one. As to the 1996 intergovernmental conference, my right hon. Friend made it clear also that he does
not believe that anything is going to happen in that conference that would remotely justify a referendum".
The question of holding one would arise only if decisions taken at the IGC had serious implications for Britain's constitutional position.

Mr. Duncan: My hon. Friend has been talking about choice. Does he admit that one choice we have is whether

to participate in a single currency? Did he, like me, hear the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) say that the opt-out had been foolishly negotiated by the Prime Minister? If she thinks that we should not have secured that opt-out, does that not mean that the inevitability of a single currency would be Labour policy? In other words, has she not said that Labour favours a single currency?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The whole House will have heard the hon. Lady make that point. I suspect that many hon. Members will also have heard the shadow Foreign Secretary on the radio this morning. It is clear from the Labour Front-Bench team's comments that Labour would simply sign up to everything and anything offered by Europe.

Mr. William Cash: My hon. Friend knows that I have the pleasure—indeed, the privilege—of addressing his Conservative association this evening on this very issue. So that I can relay his response to his local association, will he, at my invitation or, at any rate, by acquiescence, say why there was no free vote before the Maastricht treaty was accepted, why there was no White Paper, why we are not being promised a White Paper now and why we did not veto monetary union and renegotiate the fisheries policy and the borders policy, all of which could have been done in advance of the Maastricht treaty?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend will be very welcome in my constituency this evening. He has asked about seven questions but, as he was not here for the whole debate but only for the winding-up, it is somewhat unreasonable of him to expect to make a speech by way of an intervention. My Conservative association will tell him that the people did have a free vote on the Maastricht treaty—there was a general election, and the electors of north Oxfordshire understood perfectly the policies that the Conservative party outlined to them. My hon. Friend belittles my electors and those in the rest of the country if he does not accept that.
I was delighted to hear what my hon. Friend said on the radio, as there is now considerable agreement on the issue of a single currency. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated clearly:
We cannot accept that Sterling should be part of a Single Currency in 1996 or 97. We don't believe anyone could sensibly want to go ahead then but, if they do, we wouldn't be with them … To say 'yes' now or 'no' now is to operate on hunch not facts. No one knows what future economic circumstances will be.
I am sure that the House will have noted that, the other day, the Governor of the Bank of England said of the decision on a single currency:
It is not a decision that can or should be taken now.

Ms Quin: rose—

Mr. Baldry: I am already dealing with an intervention; I shall come to the hon. Lady in a second.
On the radio the other evening, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) sensibly said that the Governor of the Bank of England had demonstrated
a very serious and very realistic bottom line on the question of monetary union … it's not a matter of ideology or theology; it's a matter of straightforward common sense".


Everyone would agree with my hon. Friend and the Governor of the Bank of England that it is not a decision that can or should be taken now, and we are not going to do so.

Ms Quin: If the Minister is going to refer to our views, I am anxious that he should at least represent them fairly. Our position on a single currency has been made clear not only by the shadow Foreign Secretary but in the Labour party's policy statement on this issue. Although we support the principle of a single currency, we shall make a decision in the light of the economic circumstances at the time. We have said that, before we agreed to a single currency, we would want the move to be accompanied by measures to tackle unemployment and promote economic growth in Europe.
Our position is perfectly clear, and our criticising the Government for its opt-out does not render it any less clear. If Labour were in power, we would be in a position to make a decision about whether to join a single currency. As I also said today, we would also have the consent of the British people in that undertaking.

Mr. Baldry: That all sounds rather like embarrassed special pleading. I do not need to explain the Labour party's position on the single currency. The hon. Lady and the shadow Foreign Secretary have been taking great pains to ensure that the whole country knows and understands that the Labour party would sign up to absolutely anything. It would have abandoned all the opt-outs that the Prime Minister successfully secured at Maastricht—so much has been clear again from today's debate.

Mr. Budgen: I apologise for not having been here to hear the beginning of my hon. Friend's speech. Can he explain the consequences for employment of a single currency? We hear a great deal of talk about measures that would prevent unemployment, but most people realise that, with a single currency, either there must be a free movement of peoples—which means goodbye to immigration controls in the European Union—or there must be large subsidies to keep people in uneconomic areas.
Will my hon. Friend explain the Government's attitude? We may then even find out the Opposition's attitude.

Mr. Baldry: The Government's position is clear, and has been set out on numerous occasions. It is that a single currency—there is no disagreement about this—does and
would raise significant economic, political and constitutional issues
of the kind that my hon. Friend has just described. No one dissents from that. Such issues would have to be decided in the circumstances of the time, which is why we shall decide them in the circumstances of the time, and why we are not prepared to prejudge them now. That would be totally unnecessary and hypothetical.

Mr. Budgen: Surely, if the Government agree about the consequences of a single currency, they can decide now. In the United States, with the dollar, the only way to overcome the economic disadvantages of the regions in which people live is to allow them free movement or to keep them in place by subsidy. Surely, therefore, the

Government can say in principle whether they favour the free movement of all peoples in Europe or, if they do not, whether they favour massive subsidies to ensure that people remain where they are. The Government do not have to wait until the time arises to say whether they are in favour of one or the other.

Mr. Baldry: With respect, my hon. Friend, just like the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin), is seeking to decide on a question now which we do not have to answer now. We can answer it in our own time when the question needs to be asked.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Baldry: I must make progress.
We have made it clear that we do not think that anything will happen at the 1996 IGC that will remotely justify a referendum. The question of a referendum would arise only if decisions were taken at the conference which had serious implications for Britain's constitutional position—and we will not allow such decisions.
The Bill offers a choice on Europe of two extremes. People here want neither extreme. The fact is that the people of Britain want to be at the heart of Europe. We want to be able to influence Europe and, quite rightly, we want to ensure a European Union that meets the needs of its citizens. We want a Europe of nation states that meets the needs of the nation state.
Of course the present arrangements in Europe are not perfect—when, in the history of civilisation, have they ever been perfect in any organisation of men and women? But we are working hard to put right the problems of Europe.

Mr. Dykes: I am sure that the House will agree that my hon. Friend is putting the Government's case fairly and that there is a clear and stated policy. He rather surprised me when he announced tonight's engagement in his constituency, which will include an address by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). Is my hon. Friend planning to be at that engagement so that he can counter some of the anti-European views of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford?

Mr. Baldry: I have every confidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford will put fairly and reasonably the views of a collective party. I have every confidence also that the members of my local association will question my hon. Friend clearly and carefully on some of the views that he has advanced. I know that the views that the Government represent are wholeheartedly supported in north Oxfordshire.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Marlow: rose

Mr. Baldry: I have given way to both my hon. Friends on several occasions. I wish to make further progress.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way on the very point that he has raised?

Mr. Baldry: No.
We are working hard to put right the problems in Europe.

Mr. Budgen: I want to say something nice.

Mr. Baldry: That is tempting, but I think that it is tempting with honey.
As I have said, we are working hard to put right problems in Europe. We want to have greater budgetary discipline. We want also to have war on fraud, reform of the common agricultural policy, a greater and continuing emphasis on subsidiarity, more deregulation and a reduction in the burdens on business. We should never overlook, however, the substantial benefits of our membership of the EU—peace, jobs and prosperity, real influence—

Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Baldry: I know that my hon. Friend thinks that there is no advantage in our membership of the EU. That being so, perhaps he will listen while I outline what I consider to he the benefits of our membership.
We enjoy real influence in international trade negotiations, more influence in foreign policy and a common front against international crime and drug trafficking.
We commemorate this year the ending of the second world war. It is worth remembering that the EU, with NATO, has brought 50 years of peace and prosperity to our continent. War is now unthinkable in western Europe.
The EU is the world's largest trading bloc, with a massive 40 per cent. of world trade. Membership of the EU is crucial for British jobs, investment and prosperity. We in Britain successfully championed and helped secure the single market, which is the world's largest free trade area.
Britain is a great trading nation. Our exports to the EU have grown dramatically since we joined. The EU now takes over half of all our exports compared with just over a third before we joined. Our exports to—

Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Baldry: I would be rather more inclined to give way to my hon. Friend to listen to what he has to say if he had been prepared to listen to what we had to say before he dashed to the television studios instantly to say that he was minded to vote against the Government next week. If he listens to what I have to say, I may be able to persuade him to change his mind. He may do so when he hears of the considerable advantages of membership of the EU and the leadership that we are taking within the Union to improve it.
Britain attracts one third of all inward investment in Europe, which means millions of pounds of new investment from Japan, the United States, Korea and elsewhere. It is—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) muttered, "What about jobs?" In 1993–94, there were about 400 inward investment decisions that created or safeguarded almost 100,000 jobs. Many of them were created in areas of high unemployment. That is a real choice for Britain.

Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that the jobs position in Britain is so much better than in the rest of Europe because we do not have the huge costs bearing on our employers that have been imposed in other European countries? Does he agree also that it is vital as part of our membership of the Community that we do not give way and allow huge non-wage labour costs to be imposed on our industries?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In effect, my hon. Friend makes the point again that the

Labour party would sign up to anything offered by Europe. We want to ensure that we have an EU that is in the best interests of the people of Europe. By our leadership, we are trying to persuade fellow member states in Europe that if they continue with uncompetitive practices, Europe will lose out as against the rest of the world. I have every confidence that our view will prevail.

Mr. Duncan: A moment ago, the hon. Member for Gateshead, East said that the Labour party would have opposed the opt-out on the single currency, but nonetheless would have given the House a choice to join it. Has my hon. Friend received any advice to suggest that one could have had an opt-out while keeping such a choice?

Mr. Baldry: No. My hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and the House know that the Labour party's position on the matter is untenable. We must ensure that the country understands fully that its position is untenable.

Ms Quin: rose—

Mr. Baldry: We have heard quite enough from the hon. Lady. I would listen more intently to the Labour party were it not for the fact that it has changed its position on this issue no fewer than six times in the past few years. When I came to the House in 1983, the present leader of the Labour party stood for election with a manifesto committing Britain to withdraw from the European Community. That is the same person who now postures around the country, pretending to speak for middle England.
It serves our interests better to act together, rather than to act alone. Every child can remember Aesop's fable about the man breaking sticks. He is able to break one or perhaps two, but certainly not a bundle of 15 or 20. Membership of the European Union gives us much more clout in the eyes of our competitors and rivals. They want to know that Britain is in the main stream of European development.
Inside Europe, we are pressing successfully for trade liberalisation, more deregulation and the elimination of major state aids and bureaucratic trade barriers which may discriminate against British firms. As a great European nation, Britain must be a participant, and not just a spectator, in matters affecting our freedom and prosperity. We must not break up the machinery of Europe, but make sure that the machinery works.
Of course it is for the House to decide what it wishes to do with the Bill. I suspect that the House will wish to take it no further. It offers electors a bogus choice, and I am sure that the people of Britain have far greater self-confidence in our ability as a nation to continue to influence and fashion Europe in a way that meets our needs and enables us all to gain the benefits which our membership of the European Union undoubtedly brings to us.

Ms Quin: rose—

Mr. Baldry: I do not intend to give way to the hon. Lady again.
When I first came into politics, I was fortunate enough to work for Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven. Perhaps I ought to remind the House what her vision of Europe was, because it is as valid now as it was when we first came to office. She said:


compared with the interests we have in common, the differences which divide us shrink into insignificance. They must not be allowed to rob us of the prize which could be won by more effective common action—a new upsurge of European vitality.
Quite rightly, my noble Friend set her face firmly against federalism, saying:
I do not believe that the nation states in Europe will wither away.
She emphasised the particular importance of European co-operation and the defence of European values for the a wider world. She said:
The time has not yet come—I hope it never will—when the European Community turns inward upon itself. For Europe is the source of history's greatest endeavour, whereby the spirit of man, restless and ever ambitious, seeks always to renew itself by reaching outwards and upwards. The challenge for the next generation is to use the growing authority that will come from the greater unity of Europe to span the gaps between races and continents, between the rich and the poor, between the free and the unfree of the world … This is great work, and it cannot be carried out by timid minds".
Timid minds will not be found on the Government Benches, because we share Baroness Thatcher's vision that
we are the European party in the British Parliament and among the British people; and we want to co-operate wholeheartedly with our partners in this joint venture.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Despite her favourable mention of me in that vividly written book of hers, I cannot support the Bill of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). I oppose clause 1(1)(3) for the reasons so vividly outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). While there was more than a hint of desperation in the language used by the Minister—perhaps he has forebodings about next Wednesday—I agree with his criticism of the two questions that the hon. Lady would like to ask in her referendum. Clause 1(2)(b) is simply not in the gift of Her Majesty's Government, whichever party is in power.
Having said that, I offer my sincere compliments to the hon. Member for Billericay for initiating the debate. I entered the House with the Minister in 1983. It has been my experience that European Community debates in the House have always attracted the presence of fewer than 30 right hon. and hon. Members. But that was until the Maastricht affair. As the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) would say, there are some very well-kent faces here.
I can remember the historic moment when the European Court of Justice ruled against Her Majesty's Government on a recently enacted Act of Parliament. I refer to the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. The hon. Member for Southend, East and I were here. I spoke from the Dispatch Box in those days. On that evening there were fewer than 24 hon. Members in the House. It was the first time that the European Court of Justice—in that case, the President sitting on his own at an afternoon session of the ECJ—had advised the Government that they would have to suspend a certain section in an Act. The relevant section related to Spanish ownership of British trawlers. That was what it came down to.
Some of us told the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Bill was going through the House that it would be challenged by the European Commission in the European Court of Justice because in EC law it discriminated against non-British persons who owned or part-owned United Kingdom registered fishing vessels.
So the hon. Member for Billericay deserves our compliments. Only a small band of us in the past 10 years or so have taken part in debates on European Community and now European Union matters. In my experience, in that period of 11 or 12 years, the debates have always been dominated—if I may say so in, I hope, a fair-minded way—by those who are hostile to the European Community and hence deeply critical of its institutions. Those in favour of the Community and its institutions have been noticeable either by their absence from such debates or by their unwillingness to offer criticisms of the Union's institutions. I believe that they have let their side down.
The best advocacy, as I am sure that the late Nicky Fairbairn would have said, is to be as toughly critical of what one seeks to defend as of what one seeks to promote. Those who are in favour of the EU should be its toughest critics. Hon. Members on both sides of the House fail in that regard.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I compliment the hon. Gentleman on his sincerity and commitment to these debates, but after the merchant shipping decision and the case that will go to the court on Monday and abolish all our border controls, does it not worry him that, while he can complain, shout and scream, our democratic Parliament can do nothing about it, nor can we do anything in the councils of Europe?

Dr. Godman: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's compliments on my sincerity. Whatever one may say about him and his hostility to the Union, he is fair-minded and utterly sincere. I would describe him as passionate on such matters.
To be utterly honest, as I hope that I always am, I have mixed feelings about the European Court of Justice. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I come from a fishing family who were directly affected by that decision on merchant shipping. On the other hand, on 6 April the European Court of Justice will begin hearings on a test case that involves this Government's squalid refusal to pay invalidity benefit to women aged between 60 and 65. I am referring to the case of Mrs. Rosie Graham.
I have organised in Scotland, and helped to organise in Northern Ireland, take-up campaigns on behalf of women between those ages whose invalidity benefit has been taken away from them. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that more than 3,000 women came forward in Northern Ireland, with an even greater number in Scotland.
I have experience of the European Court of Justice, therefore, and said in another debate in which the hon. Member for Southend, East participated that it was taking on the powers of a supreme court over the 15 nations—I speak as an ex-shipwright, not as an ex-lawyer. It is a formidable decision-making body, and some of its decisions have eased the burdens of many people on low incomes throughout the 12 member states. I welcome some of its decisions, therefore, although not others.
Let us not fool ourselves. That court will go from strength to strength in terms of case law. I sincerely hope that the Government are yet again defeated on the non-payment of invalidity benefit to women aged between 60 and 65. I hope that they will expeditiously pay that money and all arrears to those women if the case goes against them. In fairness to the Government, they have a good record of compliance with directives and with decisions of the court.
One reason why I am so tough a critic of the European Union is that there are those who dodge the column where directives and decisions of the European Court of Justice are concerned. I refer with, I hope, no hint of ethnocentricity to some of the Mediterranean countries. I have been tempted to think momentarily that we would be better off without them, but that really would be ethnocentric. I wish that their Governments would behave as well as the Danish and the Dutch and, indeed, this Government, in complying with the directives.
I would welcome a referendum on the European Union, but it has to be at an appropriate moment. I do not support referendums on a yearly basis, but the people of the United Kingdom should be given the opportunity to pronounce judgment on what might prove to be radical constitutional change following the IGC. May I remind some Conservative Members when they talk about our country that this is the Parliament of a multinational state that is undergoing constitutional change, whether some hon. Members like it or not.
As I said, if Northern Ireland is given an assembly it will surely mark the beginning of the restructuring of the United Kingdom. Such a decision would gladden the hearts of secessionists and devolutionists throughout the United Kingdom. It would certainly gladden the hearts of many of my constituents in Scotland if an assembly were set up across the water. I said "assembly", but I should have said a legislature without tax-raising powers. The framework document, which everyone here will have read, refers to a legislature. If one were set up following a referendum in Northern Ireland, it would strengthen the peaceable resolution of secessionists and devolutionists elsewhere, particularly in Scotland.
Numerous institutions within the European Union cause considerable concern. I have long been a critic of the common fisheries policy. If the hon. Member for Billericay were successful today and we moved, heaven forbid, to a referendum on Europe, we might have such a wide-ranging debate that we could discuss with our constituents issues like the common fisheries policy. This may not be the moment to discuss it, but that policy needs to be changed dramatically to emphasise the regional management of fisheries and tougher policing of foreign vessels that fish within our territorial waters.
We could also debate the role, functions and powers of the European Commission and the Council of Ministers. When critics on either side of the House refer to decisions taken in Brussels, they mean decisions taken by the supreme decision-making body, the Council of Ministers, which meets in secret. Those Ministers have formidable powers and a British Minister is one of 15 major decision makers in all spheres of activity, on whom no constraints whatever are placed.
It has been suggested that the constraints placed on a Danish Minister are much more powerful than those placed on a UK Minister. Strictly speaking, that is not true. Danish Members of Parliament are not in a much

stronger position than UK Members of Parliament in terms of scrutinising European Union legislation and constraining ministerial decision making in Brussels.
May I return to the intervention by the hon. Member for Southend, East? Somehow, we must seek means by which domestic Parliaments can put a democratic check on decisions made by those 15 Ministers at European Council meetings. Inevitably, that means that greater power will have to be given to the European Parliament.
Whether hon. Members like it or not, power is seeping away from domestic Parliaments, and it is obvious that Members of the European Parliament will continue to chafe at the restraints placed on them. Members of the European Parliament, whether Conservative, Labour or whatever, want greater powers vis-a-vis the European Commission and the Council of Ministers. Whether hon. Members in this House welcome that or not, it is how things will progress in the next few years.
We are witnessing creeping integration. I agree with the hon. Member for Southend, East that it might be better to have a federal system than the current mess where the European Parliament is a talking shop and this House of Commons is increasingly constrained by decisions taken by European institutions, for example, the European Court of Justice, the Commission and the Council of Ministers. Major changes are taking place over which we have no control, so, in the end, the federalist approach might be the best bet.

Ms Quin: As I said in my speech, I am worried about seepage of powers. I criticised the Government's strategy of opt-outs, but explained that it is the Labour party's view that, as a country, we have the right to decide whether to join a single currency. That option is available to countries whether they have negotiated opt-outs of the kind negotiated by the Government or not.

Dr. Godman: I support what my hon. Friend says about the social chapter. During a debate last year, I predicted that multinationals with satellite subsidiaries in Scotland or England will increasingly find it easier to conform to some of the rules and regulations emanating from the European Union than to stand out against them. I said many months ago that it does not make sense in terms of good industrial relations and good employer-employee relations to deny advances made elsewhere to employees in Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. That is another type of development that will take place whether we are in or out of Europe.
Those who support the European Union the strongest, those who are its keenest advocates, should be its toughest-minded critics. Some of them have sought to smooth over the inadequacies of the European institutions or the unrestrained power that some of them exercise. By doing so and by being so weak-kneed in their assessment of the European Union, they have betrayed their own cause.
Although I do not necessarily agree with those people who are mistakenly labelled Europhobes, I have a great deal of sympathy for them because at least they are tough critics of the European Union. That is what is needed before we can even talk about its expansion and about extending the mechanisms of integration. We need that scepticism in our approach to the European Union, particularly on the issue of subsidiarity.
If the House and, I hope, one day, a Scottish Parliament, is to have any decisive decision-making powers, that will come about only through a democratic interpretation of article 3b of the Maastricht treaty, which relates to subsidiarity. That article is subject to an entirely different interpretation in other countries, particularly the Federal Republic of Germany.
The supporters of the European Union should start to voice criticisms of it because others will then listen to them more sympathetically.

Mrs. Angela Knight: I am conscious of the time, so I shall be as brief as I can.
The debate has been dominated by experts on European matters and by lawyers and, perhaps even more formidably, by lawyers who are also experts in European matters. I refer especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who falls very clearly into that bracket. I have a great deal of respect for his opinions, and agree with him that a clear divide between the two parties is essential, and preferable to a referendum.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who instigated the debate. Her opening remarks covered many of the issues that are a worry to British people. I recall that she mentioned fishing and the common agricultural policy, which are both areas of great concern.
I worry about a referendum. My postbag is full of requests for a referendum on hanging, not a referendum on Europe. I know that that matter has been discussed earlier. Although we may stand here and discuss the fact that one is a constitutional matter and the other is not, I am not convinced that that argument holds any water in the country.

Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that the benefits of a referendum are, first, that it enables one to discover what public opinion is on an issue that is not necessarily presented to the general public in a general election; and, secondly, that it gives the opportunity of invigorating our politics by allowing the general public to become involved in the debate in a much more obvious way?

Mrs. Knight: Those are two of the fundamental arguments in favour of a referendum—arguments that cannot be ignored. There are equal arguments against a referendum, such as that concerning the question that is asked. The problem of the question that is asked is a significant reason why I am worried about the Bill. The question, with all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay, is extraordinarily vague. One cannot envisage a circumstance in which one might ask a vague question, whereas one can envisage a circumstance in which one might ask a precise question. It is the generality of the clause that worries me most.
I am also worried about whether a referendum will be helpful in the run-up to the 1996 intergovernmental conference. In my opinion, the most important aspect of the run-up to the 1996 conference is that we should have our own agenda.

Mrs. Gorman: Is it true that my hon. Friend has just been handed a note asking her to speak until gone 2.30 pm?

Mrs. Knight: I will say to my hon. Friend that the notes that I have are in my hand and have been here since 9.30 this morning. I am under the impression that the debate does finish at 2.30 pm. If I am wrong about that, someone will no doubt tell me. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will inform me if I speak for too long or, indeed, stand up or sit down at the wrong moment. I hope that that answers the question.
The argument that I wished to make was that we must devote most attention to—

Mrs. Gorman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I call for a closure?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What the hon. Lady wishes to do is entirely for her, but she must understand the procedures of the House and not just stand up and ask permission to do things. If she does not know the Standing Orders of the House, it is high time that she learnt them.

Mrs. Gorman: May I ask that the Question now be put? I have moved it on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a point of order from the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman).

Mrs. Gorman: rose in her place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

The House divided: Ayes 24, Noes 2.

Division No. 85]
[2.29 pm


AYES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Barnes, Harry
Maclennan, Robert


Body, Sir Richard
Madden, Max


Carttiss, Michael
Marlow, Tony


Cash, William
Mills, Iain


Cohen, Harry
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Cox, Tom
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Skinner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman A
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Wilkinson, John


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)



Hoey, Kate
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jessel, Toby
Mr. Christopher Gill and Mr. Roger Knapman


Livingstone, Ken





NOES


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)



Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Tellers for the Noes:



Mr. Alan Duncan and Mr. Gary Streeter

It appearing on the report of the Division that fewer than forty members had taken part in the Division, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided.

It being after half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Monday 27 February.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

REFERENDUM (SINGLE CURRENCY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 July.

PRISONERS (RETURN TO CUSTODY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 March.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 17 March.

NATURAL DISASTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 March.

PREVENTION OF FRAUD (REGISTRATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

INSURANCE COMPANIES (RESERVES) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [27 January], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday 3 March.

LAND REGISTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 March.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,

That—

(1) the Scottish Grand Committee shall meet on Wednesday 29th March at half-past Ten o'clock;

(2) at that meeting, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 94A (Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business))—

(i) a Motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a member of the government;
(ii) attention may be called to the subject chosen by the Member specified in the Table below until the hour there specified; and

(iii) at One o'clock the Motion shall lapse; and

(3) each Member so specified shall give notice not later than Wednesday 15th March of his choice of subject.


TABLE


Mr. Secretary Lang
11.15 a.m.


Mr. George Robertson
12.00 noon


Mr. Jim Wallace
12.30 p.m


Mr. Alex Salmond
—

—[Mr. Wells.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 28th February, the Speaker shall—

(1) not later than Seven o'clock put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Lilley relating to the draft Statutory Sick Pay Percentage Threshold, Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase, Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) and Social Security Benefits Up-rating Orders 1995 and the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1995 and in the name of Mr. Tony Blair relating to the Income-related Benefits Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 1994; and

(2) not later than Ten o'clock put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Gummer relating to the draft North Yorkshire (District of York) (Structural and Boundary Changes) and Humberside (Structural Change) Orders 1995—[Mr. Wells].

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
That the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may he proceeded with as if it had been certified by Madam Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland.—[Mr. Wells].

M40 (Widening)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]

Mr. Tim Smith: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the proposed widening of the M40 between the M25 and High Wycombe. I last raised the question of motorways in my constituency in an Adjournment debate on 15 May 1992, when my starting point was—as today—the problem of increasing noise.
Three motorways run through my constituency. The M4 will be familiar to my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads, as it runs the full length of his constituency. The M25 runs from just south of its junction with the M4 to just north of its junction with the M40, and the M40 extends to just beyond the Loudwater flyover at High Wycombe. Three years ago, it was proposed that each of those stretches of motorway be widened to four lanes in each direction. Work on the M25 has been completed. Traffic flows much more smoothly and, consequently, traffic volumes on the A355 between Beaconsfield and Slough have fallen.
The scheme to widen the M4 was replaced by a more ambitious scheme, effectively to construct a new Slough bypass. It is a great comfort that my hon. Friend will be replying because, as my neighbour, he is as familiar as I am with the roads that I am describing.
The M40 widening scheme was added to the trunk road construction programme in May 1989 as part of the "Roads for Prosperity" White Paper and confirmed in the February 1990 report, "Trunk Roads, England—Into the 1990s", which stated that the preferred route would be decided in 1992. In fact, the scheme was published in 1993. When local public exhibitions were held, my constituents were principally concerned with the environmental consequences of the proposed widening—noise, atmospheric pollution and lighting at night.
As I explained to the House three years ago, the most extreme example of the growing noise problem in my constituency is provided by the M40. When it opened more than 20 years ago, it was relatively quiet—perhaps even underused. With the extension of the M40 to Birmingham, which was not originally envisaged, traffic volumes grew rapidly. There has been a substantial increase in the number of heavy goods vehicles and the noise is intolerable in parts of Beaconsfield and Gerrards Cross.
The purpose of my debate three years ago was to persuade the Department of Transport of the merits of porous asphalt. I was delighted when, two months later, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle), then Minister for Roads and Traffic, announced a three-prong attack on the source of noise from road surfaces following an in-depth review.
My hon. Friend said that, in urban and more sensitive areas, porous asphalt would be used where conditions were suitable, and that the benefits outweighed both the higher cost and the need for expensive winter maintenance and more frequent resurfacing. We then had to set about persuading the Department that porous asphalt should be used on this particular stretch of motorway. There was no doubt that Beaconsfield and

Gerrards Cross were noise-sensitive, and my constituents needed no encouragement to write to the Department in large numbers, pressing the case for porous asphalt.
In August 1992, my hon. Friend the then Minister for Roads and Traffic wrote to me that it was still too early to say whether porous asphalt would be the right material in the circumstances. By August 1993, the motorway widening unit was writing to my constituents to confirm that
porous asphalt will be provided as the running surface for this section of the M40 as part of the widening works.
That was, of course, not the only noise amelioration measure; the symptoms and the cause were to be treated by means of environmental barriers, which would serve the dual purpose of a visual screen and noise barrier.
Understandably, my constituents were demanding those improvements whether or not the motorway was widened. I explained that the Department was empowered by Parliament to make such improvements only as part of a widening scheme. From mid-1993 onwards, therefore, I was pressing the Department to announce a final start date. Last year, the motorway widening unit confirmed that it hoped to start work this March so that most of the cost would be incurred in the financial year 1995–96.
Then came the Secretary of State's announcement on 19 December that he was refocusing the roads programme. Because of the redirecting of resources, he would no longer be proceeding immediately with six publicly funded schemes on which work was scheduled to begin in 1994–95. He said that he would consider proceeding with four of them by design, build, finance and operate—or DBFO—contracts. One of them was the widening of the M40.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, whom I should like to thank for keeping me so well informed, wrote to me at once to say that his provisional view was that the length of the M40 improvement scheme itself was too short for the scheme to be free standing as a DBFO. The issue was what might partner it to form a sensible management task.
I commend my hon. Friend for the speed with which he then proceeded to a decision on the matter. He wrote to me on 14 February to say that he had decided to invite bids for the management of the M40 between junctions 1 and 15, a length of some 75 miles. One of the first tasks for the appointed company would be to widen the section between junctions 1A and 3.
My hon. Friend had an important point to make about the Handy Cross junction improvement. He said that, because that scheme is to be the subject of a public inquiry, that element of construction could not be included in the DBFO contract since it was not legally authorised. The Department would, however, expect the appointed company to co-operate in its delivery should it be subsequently approved. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), who shares my concern about motorway noise and who is especially concerned about traffic congestion at Handy Cross, has asked me to say that he welcomes that, as I do, but that he hopes that the scheme will be approved soon.
My hon. Friend the Minister told me that he would invite expressions of interest with responses due by the end of March; he would select bidders by May and invite tenders by June. Tenders would be in by the end of the year and construction could start in the late spring of


1996. I should like to make it clear to my hon. Friend that the DBFO scheme and his proposed timetable have my full support. I want the widening scheme to be implemented as soon as possible, and I believe that that is the best way to achieve it.
As it happens, we debated clause 87 of the Finance Bill in Standing Committee last night. It amends the Capital Allowances Act 1990 to provide industrial buildings allowances for so-called highway concessions. That will allow a company appointed to operate a DBFO contract to write off its capital expenditure for tax purposes over a 25-year period. In addition, the Department has now published its pre-qualification document for the four DBFO contracts, one of which is the M40 project.
I was glad to read paragraph 3.5.3 of appendix A to the document, which states clearly that the finished surface of the road must be porous asphalt; and paragraph 3.6.1 lists the environmental commitments and undertakings that the Department has made during the statutory procedures. All those must be adhered to by the appointed company.
The traffic information in the document shows that the number of vehicles using the stretch between the M25 and Beaconsfield exceeded 100,000 for the first time last year. The number using the stretch between Beaconsfield and Loudwater was 98,000. So for both traffic congestion and noise pollution reasons, this is an urgent scheme. I hope that my hon. Friend will today reaffirm his commitment to its early completion, and in particular to all the environmental improvements that my constituents want to see in place at the earliest opportunity.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I congratulate my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), on securing this debate—the second in three years that he has initiated on the M40. It is typical of the care and concern that he shows for his constituents in advocating their needs in the House. He has also taken many opportunities to lobby me and to write to me on the same matters.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue again, and to say a little about the schemes for improvement between junction 1A and junction 4 at High Wycombe, and about our choice of the DBFO route to deliver this important scheme.
As my hon. Friend said, traffic has grown considerably, now averaging between 87,000 and 101,000 vehicles a day between junctions 1A and 4. As I have found when travelling to the midlands and further north using the M40, congestion at these junctions and along that stretch is particularly heavy. We expect traffic to continue to grow in line with the long-term growth of the economy. If this stretch is left unattended, the expected increase in traffic would lead to existing congestion at peak times becoming more frequent and longer lasting.
Congestion has no merits. It brings with it longer journey times, greater fuel consumption, stress and frustration, accidents and higher levels of pollution. In this case there is also the possibility of traffic diverting to alternative, less appropriate routes such as the A40.
I wrote in December to my hon. Friend explaining why this improvement was being considered for a privately financed shadow toll contract—a design, build, finance and operate project. I shall return to the merits and timing

of DBFO contracts a little later, but I am convinced that we can deliver the benefits of this scheme more quickly under the DBFO arrangement than we could on the public sector budget under conventional procurement.
My hon. Friend has raised a number of questions about the environmental effects of the motorway and of the improvement scheme, and I want to deal with the substance of these issues. He will know that the Highways Agency routinely examines very carefully the environmental effects of schemes and the measures needed to mitigate them. That has been done with these improvements.
A considerable advantage of building on the existing road network—such as widening, rather than building completely new roads across new routes—is that it limits intrusion into built-up and rural areas. But there is no reason why those living alongside existing routes should suffer more from the policy of containing road improvements to existing corridors. It is therefore very much our aim to try to improve the level of protection that they enjoy. I know that my hon. Friend appreciates the degree of environmental protection designed into the scheme between junctions 1A and 3. The Highways Agency has sought to limit the local effect of the widening still further by designing it to be carried out entirely within the existing highway boundary.
Noise is always a legitimate concern. We are all too aware that existing traffic noise levels next to the motorway are generally very high. Prevailing noise levels are estimated to be as high as 75 dB within 55 yd of the motorway and between 70 and 75 adjacent to existing main roads. At about 325 yd from the motorway, noise levels generally have dropped to only about 68 dB. The area around the Loudwater viaduct is particularly noisy where the motorway is elevated.
The proposed improvement includes extensive environmental protection: 6 to 9 ft noise barriers arid bunding are proposed at sensitive locations. The overall aim is to reduce existing traffic noise by a significant level for people living near to the motorway. As my hon. Friend knows, I am delighted to be able to confirm to him again today that we are intending to use a porous asphalt surface where it is required, although not all of the normal criteria are met.
Where durability and maintenance are not a problem, as in this instance, the use of porous asphalt brings significant noise reduction benefits as well as improving safety by reducing spray in wet conditions. I am pleased to say that this and all other commitments to environmental measures made in our original decision letter will be honoured in the DBFO contract.
Between junctions 1A and 3, about 90 properties qualify for noise insulation either from traffic noise or construction noise. Installation of secondary glazing is currently under way. The insulation should all be complete before the start of work, which will protect against the inevitably high levels of construction noise. There will, of course, be strict controls over the timing of construction. There will also be extensive visual screening. The DBFO contract will honour those undertakings too.
My hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) have pressed me about the need to get on with the further scheme for widening between junctions 3 and 4, which includes the notorious Handy


Cross interchange. The scheme is in the early stages of its development. The improvement is important and it will be pursued, but other schemes have higher priority.
There has been extensive public consultation about the nature of the improvement between junctions 3 and 4. It was on the basis of two options, one of which would incorporate an improved Handy Cross junction on its present alignment, and the other a new junction further to the south. The second option would encroach slightly on an area of outstanding natural beauty, so it raises some sensitive issues. All the responses that have been received are being carefully analysed. I hope that it will not be too long before we can announce our conclusions on the route to be developed. Following that, the scheme will have to be developed so that it is ready for presentation at a public inquiry, which I think is almost inevitable.
We have not pinned all our hopes on the major improvement scheme. There has been a continuing programme of smaller improvements to the Handy Cross roundabout during the past three years. These include slip-road widening, traffic-monitoring loops and upgraded traffic-signal equipment. All these improvements provide increased capacity in the short term. The Highways Agency has undertaken extensive reviews of traffic-signal timings to prevent queuing on the existing slip road, so reducing the possibility of the interchange becoming gridlocked.
I turn now to our private finance policy and how we propose to apply it to the M40. The private finance initiative is gathering pace. We see new opportunities in many areas day by day, and transport is at the forefront of them. The Highways Agency and the Department have been keen to innovate in getting roads built and maintained. That is as it should be. The nation's most important roads are among its most important assets. There is no place for old-fashioned thinking.
These considerations underpin our design, build, finance and operate contracts. We view the investment from the service end of the project and pay accordingly. The principle is, no service, no pay. That is the basis on which we tendered the initial four projects in January. It will underpin the further tranche of four, which includes the M40, which I announced last week.
I shall comment briefly on the contract's main features. First, design. That means two things. There is the strategic, external element of design as it benefits the national roads system—that remains primarily the Government's responsibility—and taking the case through a public inquiry.
All undertakings given at or since public inquiries will be binding on the company which eventually delivers the project. But there is still significant scope for greater freedom for the appointed company to apply business principles in the realisation of that design during the building phase of work. There are efficiencies to be gained in the process of construction, not least as in the case of the M40, where the project must be conducted on a live motorway.
With financial responsibility goes risk. The company will not be paid fully until the full service is delivered, post-construction. Its payments will depend, at the margin, on delivering an efficient service. Finance is clearly significant both in terms of cost control and reinforcing discipline in the process of construction, but

also in terms of volume and speed. Private finance enables projects to tap into a flexible and enthusiastic investment market. Private finance also allows us to proceed with projects that we could not otherwise afford or only at a later date.
We shall be able to realise the benefits of these further projects both to the national road system and the local communities it serves. The most important element of the new contract is, however, the operational phase. We shall pay shadow tolls in return for a service given. The amount of those tolls will in practice be set by a market judgment of the standard and reliability of that service.
The contract will last for 30 years. My hon. Friend knows as much about the City as any of use in the House, and will recognise that a DBFO is not merely a deferred payment or credit arrangement. If that was all we wanted, we could get project finance over a period of 15 to 18 years. We would not have to go to 30 years for such an arrangement. Crucially, we want bidders to base their assumptions not only on having to live with what they build, but on taking on long-term maintenance obligations and the obligation to provide reliability of service to the motoring public. That means extending company obligations, both geographically and in time.
The eight projects announced so far cover nearly 6 per cent. of the trunk road and motorway system. They provide us with the test bed for a new industry. The contract gives us the opportunity to unify responsibilities which are now distributed between private companies and public authorities. The private sector already has a great deal to do with design, construction and maintenance. The next logical step is to extend this into road management. But the Secretary of State remains the client as the proxy for the travelling public, and he also remains the highways authority for motorways and trunk roads.
From what my hon. Friend said—I know that he is supported by other hon. Members—there is no doubt that the section between the M25 and High Wycombe must he widened. The widening scheme between junctions 1A and 3 is fully authorised. It will supply a fourth lane in each direction on the most heavily used section of the motorway. The next section to the west between junctions 3 and 4 is at an early stage and it must be developed and taken through a public inquiry before it can be implemented.
The DBFO contract, however, contains provisions which allow further contracts to be let to deliver schemes subsequently authorised. The first task at High Wycombe is to get a scheme through a public inquiry.
In taking forward private finance proposals, we have been met with great enthusiasm to take on significant management tasks as well as construction. The M40 project is a direct response to that enthusiasm. The company will maintain and manage in daily service for 30 years some 75 miles of motorway from London to Warwick. It will need to co-operate with the highway authorities, the police and other organisations with a direct interest in the road.
As to time scale, my hon. Friend is naturally concerned that the scheme is delivered as rapidly as possible. We invited expressions of interest only last week, and submissions are due by the end of March. We shall go out to tender in June, and negotiate bids received in November. On that basis, construction should start next


spring, and we should also achieve a transfer of managerial responsibility for the existing M40, from junction 1 to junction 15 at Warwick.
I very much welcome the warm support which my hon. Friend expressed for our decision to make use of the DBFO route for carrying forward this scheme. I see the

M40 as leading the way to the future management of our national roads system, and I look for the project to receive as warm a welcome locally as it has received from my hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Three o 'clock.